What is something you wish 5e did better.

[Lupine]

This thread is inspired by two threads, the one about errata, and the one speculating about a possible 5.5e.

I'm not talking about errata, because it's not one thing that would have to be changed, but a fundemental change to 5e you would like.

For me, it's monster types: they're so whishy-washy, and don't mean anything anyway except for a few certain spells. I really wish 5e had ironclad monster types, where each type of monster actually meant something. Likewise, certain things need better categorization. For example, I think that Owlbears should be beasts, but it doesn't matter if they are or are not: neither one effects the monster at all.

[Trask]

I wish the spell list wasnt so bloated and was more thematically tight.

[LudicSavant]

Basically every single form of summoning from Conjure Woodland Creatures to Beastmaster.

Mounted rules.

Encumbrance & lift/push/drag weights.

Speed of creatures (horses are slower than real life humans in 5e).

That stupid unenforceable rule about spell components where VSM is sometimes easier than VS.

Noncombat options for martials.

High level stuff for martials.

Things interacting with the world with a little more... narrative consistency ("Oh, the acid breath can only damage creatures, not objects" "...")

Races being able to fit really well into any class, rather than playing match-the-attributes (it can be done, other games do it).

Magic item system.

[heavyfuel]

That stupid unenforceable rule about spell components where VSM is sometimes easier than VS.

Is this really a thing? What rule is this?

[OldTrees1]

Is this really a thing? What rule is this?

Yes, if you have a spell focus it can replace "M,S" and "M" but not "S".

I wish the 5E skill system was better. That alone is my biggest gripe. Which we should not get into too much because it has derailed threads like this in the past. However one innovation I really miss was skill points which allowed the player to customize their PCs and have them grow into new skills.

[LudicSavant]

Is this really a thing? What rule is this?


The Worst Component Rule: Somatic+Material is Sometimes Easier to Cast Than Somatic


What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.

Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

In order to actually enforce this rule, the player (and DM, as arbiter) need to either know by memory what the components of each and every spell are, or start going through their notes or, worse, stopping the game to flip through books. Well, maybe it's just a few spells that we have to remember, let's take a loo--

239 spells have S and M
174 spells have S, but no M
There does not seem to be any discernible pattern to determine which are which without actually checking.

I can memorize a lot but damn. This is impossible. Who thought this rule was a good idea? Did they just want to make 5e the most needlessly complex edition? I can memorize pretty much everything in 3.5e but not this.

It's needlessly confusing to new players, annoying to veterans, and does nothing of particular value for the game IMHO. I suggest murdering the rule with an axe. If you don't own an axe, a hammer will suffice.

(By contrast,all I need to know for adjudicating stealth components is...
26 spells have no Verbal component, and I don't even need to remember all of them because some give you away anyways (like Thunderclap or Primal Savagery). The main ones to remember are just the Shape Element cantrips, Minor Illusion, Catapult, Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, and Mind Spike. That's not hard to remember.

And all I need to know for adjudicating people being bound but not gagged is...
57 spells have no Somatic or Material component, the most relevant ones being "basically all the teleports." And frankly this is almost never relevant in combat and is a pretty niche thing so checking a book in an edge case is at least tolerable)

[Asisreo1]

I would appreciate easier to read rules.

I'll always facepalm looking at the stealth/hiding rules.

I mostly understand the rules but introducing them to new players is like helping an 8th grader with calculus 102.

[Dork_Forge]

I wish feats were better integrated into the system and divided into major (mechanically significant like PAM, GWM, Warcaster etc.) and minor (Keen Mind, Actor etc. without the half bump) with minor feats given at certain character levels so no matter what you're playing you get to add in some fun roleplay crunch.

It'd also be nice if it felt a little deadlier, whether that be altering hp progression, how it handles dropping to 0 or rez magic.

[Sparky McDibben]

Teaching DMs how to run a dungeon crawl

Teaching DMs how to run other kinds of scenarios than dungeon-crawls

[Warwick]

Provided better guidance and tools for interesting encounter design. Too many monsters are bland meatsacks, the difficulty guidelines are somewhere between unhelpful and and actively harmful, and there's little help on adding texture to make encounters more than a white room exercise with a coat of paint.

Provided better guidance and tools for exploration as a major game activity. Whether it is in a wilderness or a dungeon, this ought to be a major part of gameplay, but it isn't because there's no support for it.

(I actually have a very long list, but I don't want to belabor it too much)

[WaroftheCrans]

Write everything in clear and consistent language. It's pretty terrible how ambiguous 5e is. They can't even stick with a single meaning when they discuss cover, for instance.

I want the rules to read as if WotC had a programmer write the rules, had an english major translate them, (without using a thesaurus/synonyms) and then finally had a powergamer, a story teller, and a lawyer proofread and play test.

[Nifft]

Teaching DMs how to run a dungeon crawl

Teaching DMs how to run other kinds of scenarios than dungeon-crawls

DMs should crawl before they run.

[Dienekes]

Martial combat is the big one. Mounted needing a bit more work in general.

Skills and allowing them to be used in combat more effectively without having Expertise break the game.

Willingness to try different refresh mechanics rather than At-Will, Short Rest, Long Rest.

[EggKookoo]

I wish the spell list wasnt so bloated and was more thematically tight.

Agreed. There was an opportunity missed to unify the spells. Especially since upcasting became so prominent, we could get away with one "shoots fire from hands" spell that just got more powerful as you gained higher level slots.

[Millstone85]

The "creature" class. There seems to be quite the competition for themes between the sorcerer and warlock classes. Where are the fey and fiendish origins? Where is the draconic patron? I think the sorcerer should have eaten the warlock, gaining its invocations as well as its boons of the blade, the chain, and the tome. Let the player decide if their character made a pact or was born with the power.

Power loss. Either there shouldn't have been rules for a paladin breaking their oath, or there should also have been rules for a cleric losing the favor of their god, a druid their attunement to nature, a warlock the support of their patron, etc.

Spell lists. I might be alone on this, but I think it would be much more flavorful if there were only three spell lists: arcane, divine, and primal. It doesn't feel right to me how certain spells are accessible, say, to a bard but not to a sorcerer or a wizard.


They can't even stick with a single meaning when they discuss cover, for instance.I haven't noticed that in the books. Readers, yes, they certainly confuse cover with obscurement. A transparent force field would provide cover but not obscurement, while smoke would provide obscurement but not cover. Cover can be half, three-quarters or total, while obscurement can be light or heavy.

[HappyDaze]

I'm not a fan of the skill system and the near-constant "oh, and I'll help so you get Advantage (or can negate Disadvantage)" on almost every check.

[WaroftheCrans]

I'm not a fan of the skill system and the near-constant "oh, and I'll help so you get Advantage (or can negate Disadvantage)" on almost every check.

Haha, it does get a bit repetitive, and doesn't make a ton of sense when you have the sorcerer helping the cleric make a perception check, or the barbarian helping the wizard with a history check. Some of these things just shouldn't work.

[Fryy]

The Worst Component Rule: Somatic+Material is Sometimes Easier to Cast Than Somatic


Agree.

Wish List & Opinions
1. See above. Somehow spells with more spell components should be harder to cast than spells with less components. Otherwise, it's counter-intuitive. The rule explanations seem contrived to me because the result is counter-intuitive.
2. More Feats/ASI's - Need the combined total to be just a few higher over 20 levels... and some levels Feat-only and some levels ASI only... it would be nice and every character would have at least one feat.
3. Make Short-Rests per Long-Rest more of a predictable resource - Don't have a 'suggested' # of short rests per day... just set a maximum # of short rests per day and reduce the duration from one hour to 10 minutes or 1 minute so that short rests are as manageable and predictable a resource as long rests. Perhaps recovering HP would still take 1 hour, but not any other features.
4. Fix Bladesingers - Mechanically, they should be somehow more like Valor/Sword Bards where the sub-class abilities scale (i.e. level 14) with a larger class investment. Bladesong is too front loaded, too short-rest dependent, too 'on/off', and perhaps too powerful when 'on'.
5. Attunement slots should scale with proficiency - a level 20 character should have a few more attunement slots than a level 1 character. Perhaps set # of attunement slots to 'proficiency minus 1'.
6. Make alignment more of a thing mechanically - examples 'good clerics/paladins/druids could turn evil clerics/paladins/druids and vice versa... chaotic could turn lawful and vice versa... it would be entertaining.

[Ignimortis]

Better HP/resistances/damage scaling. Yes, bounded accuracy, yadda, yadda. Nevertheless, it should not be possible to hit an adult dragon at level 1 and deal meaningful damage. Damage Resistance needs to make a comeback (something like DR 10 on a dragon would work wonders), and damage should correspond to this. However, it works both ways hitting a CR5 enemy with all of your martial's attacks at level 15 should kill them with significant overkill, not bring them to half health. You can retain the dangerousness of low-level creatures without making them sacks of HP - more glass cannon and neat tricks, less padded sumo and raw HP damage.
Less long rest/short rest reliant resources and mechanics. Those mechanics work fine in a dungeon crawl, but I've yet to see anyone who plays 5e like a pure or almost pure dungeon crawl instead of a campaign in which dungeons sometimes appear. 3.5 had the right idea - short round-based cooldowns, refreshes, at-wills that could be cool, not just X/day.
Caster balancing. I've always maintained that the key to caster balance is the reverse of what 5e did - whereas WotC went with "wide access, but less power", I consider "narrow access, greater power" to be much better in all situations. Wizards are, obviously, the most contentious class here, to which I say - make them half-casters with focus on rituals, if they want to retain the archmage fantasy. Full casters should have very narrow thematic lists. Also, bards should be half-casters - I have no idea who thought that giving bards both martial abilties and full casting was a good idea.
Martial balancing. Nobody besides Monk and Totem Barb gains anything good out of combat or even just interesting in a fantastical way past level 7 or so. Martials stop scaling narratively and just keep gaining damage and HP. I see no reason why almost everything cool outside of Monk/Barb has to be A) magic B) limited by rests.

[KyleG]

Time. I mean in the overworld how likely do you face more than 1 wild encounter in a day. So SR and LR recharge abilities should factor that in more. Kinda like gritty. I run LR and SR both as nighttime sleep cycles. 2 nights (SR rest) and the third night if the first two nights were uninterrupted for anything then you get the benefits of a LR. Still not quite right.
And speaking of time the 30 second battles just feels weird...i fudge this saying that the combat we actually rolled was more like a highlight real. Most combats took at least a few minutes and up to 1/2hr time passing thus far.

And then there is healing...i dont have a fix...i just dont like it. As a player i try to RP using a steel on my weapon and cleaning it etc. My armor should be dinged and damaged, so too my weapon overtime. But HP remains odd...its almost like a portion should be attributed to armour and someone to actual health. Tying HP to class i also dont particularily like and am playing with the idea that 1/5/10/15/20th HP gains are of the physical flesh kind. The rest are improvements to skills and armor etc.

[Yora]

Teaching DMs how to run a dungeon crawl

Teaching DMs how to run other kinds of scenarios than dungeon-crawls

Teaching GMs.

The only edition that ever tried teaching the game was BECMI in 1983. All other editions are "here are the mechanics, you figure out what to do with them".
I always had a suspicion that most D&D rulebook creators don't actually know much about the reality of preparing and running adventures.

[Eldan]

Things interacting with the world with a little more... narrative consistency ("Oh, the acid breath can only damage creatures, not objects" "...")

Honestly, this is the big one for me. That, and the excesses of bounded accuracy.

Yes, I know I can houserule it when I want the acid breath to melt through a door. But I shouldn't have to.

Sometimes, I get annoyed how many times I just have to say "Yes, the rules say this, but come on we know a colossal dragon can break down a wooden pallisade".

[HappyDaze]

Honestly, this is the big one for me. That, and the excesses of bounded accuracy.

Yes, I know I can houserule it when I want the acid breath to melt through a door. But I shouldn't have to.

Sometimes, I get annoyed how many times I just have to say "Yes, the rules say this, but come on we know a colossal dragon can break down a wooden pallisade".

Oh yes. We all found it weird that our Druid could not ignite a pile of dried kindling with produce flame and in another weird instance, discovered that create bonfire sheds no light.

[EggKookoo]

Oh yes. We all found it weird that our Druid could not ignite a pile of dried kindling with produce flame and in another weird instance, discovered that create bonfire sheds no light.

What's the justification for create bonfire not shedding light?

[LudicSavant]

What's the justification for create bonfire not shedding light?

It's from the people who argue that spells only do what they explicitly say they do in their spell description, and that since it doesn't explicitly mention a light radius, they conclude it does not have one. Ergh...

[EggKookoo]

It's from the people who argue that spells only do what they say they do in their spell description, and that since it doesn't mention a light radius, they conclude it does not have one. Ergh...

Ok, thanks, I was wondering if there was some blanket rule about fire produced by magic not shedding light.


Haha, it does get a bit repetitive, and doesn't make a ton of sense when you have the sorcerer helping the cleric make a perception check, or the barbarian helping the wizard with a history check. Some of these things just shouldn't work.

The real problem is that the rules should specify that the DM is free to disallow helping if the helper wouldn't normally be able to perform the action solo, or if the helper's assistance would be so minimal it doesn't confer any bonus. I think the rules do say something about that regarding proficiency and helping with tool use, but I can't recall.

I would not allow anyone to help a PC make a history check unless it made sense within context, or if the helper was either unusually high-Int or was proficient in history. I mean, the rules don't specify that you must be non-incapacitated and mobile to make a strength check to bash down a door, but I wouldn't allow a PC that's out cold to provide help to do that. It's only common sense (I know, I know...).

[MoiMagnus]

The only edition that ever tried teaching the game was BECMI in 1983. All other editions are "here are the mechanics, you figure out what to do with them".

I think 4e qualify as an editions that tried to teach DMs, especially with its second DMG. Whether it succeeded or not is much more arguable... (Especially since it pushed DMs toward a very formal sequence of encounters). But the DMG2 still had an entire chapter on story building, and how to balance branching story-structures with player inputs. And it really felt to me that the author tried to teach DMs.

[ZRN]

I wish 5e had more "magic" outside the spell/spellcasting system.

Monks are an example of what I'm talking about: they can do lots of supernatural stuff without ever making you look up the nitty-gritty rules about spell slots, casting time, material components, and so on, much less forcing you to dip into the dreaded Spells chapter. (And even monks still force you to look up spellcasting rules for SOME of their class abilities.)

The current spellcasting system has its historical roots, but taken ahistorically it would seem basically like a system for wizards (nerdy bookworms) that was then lazily reverse-engineered into something that's supposed to work for EVERY non-mundane effect in the game. Like, really, the elder dragon has to mumble fake Latin and lob a ball of bat guano to cast Fireball? Same for the paladin blessing his companions in battle, the sorcerer haunted by a dark bloodline, etc?

As for the Spells chapter - it's a hundred plus pages of rules exceptions, PLUS you have to cross-reference at least couple different tables and lists to figure out which spells you even have access to at a given time (much less how many you can cast and how often). Like, if I'm a new player reading through the rulebook, how do I think, say, a level 10 warlock plays? The only way to figure it out is to read the entire multi-page class description (to understand how its spell slots work), AND the available spells list, AND any supplemental subclass spells list, and THEN go through that huge alphabetical list of spells, one by one, to see which of them are any good. ("Hmm, at 10th level I can, uh, Hold Monster and Dream? Is this a weird romance novel?") That's not to understand the nitty-gritty of what the best mechanical options are - that's just to understand the basic question of "what does this class do?" Now let me flip to the monk or the barbarian or the fighter, and whoah, there we go, I understand 90% of what makes the class special just from reading the two-page list of Class Abilities.

There's absolutely no mechanical reason that the game doesn't include a class like the 3.5e warlock that can do a bunch of cool magical stuff (shoot fire, fly around, etc) without "Casting Spells." It's a real missed opportunity that they didn't include more options to let you play a range of characters even if you're the type of person who doesn't have the time or inclination to read and keep track of the huge, complex spell system.

[Skylivedk]

I wish feats were better integrated into the system and divided into major (mechanically significant like PAM, GWM, Warcaster etc.) and minor (Keen Mind, Actor etc. without the half bump) with minor feats given at certain character levels so no matter what you're playing you get to add in some fun roleplay crunch.

It'd also be nice if it felt a little deadlier, whether that be altering hp progression, how it handles dropping to 0 or rez magic.

+1

More viable actions and complex decision making trees for martials as well please. Especially out of combat

Also: an actual exploration pillar and a good way of doing heists

[KorvinStarmast]

I wish the spell list wasnt so bloated and was more thematically tight. Likewise. There's some overlap for sure.

Mounted rules.
Speed of creatures
Races being able to fit really well into any class, rather than playing match-the-attributes (it can be done, other games do it). WIth you on all of these.

I would appreciate easier to read rules. I'll always facepalm looking at the stealth/hiding rules. I mostly understand the rules but introducing them to new players is like helping an 8th grader with calculus 102. Surprise and stealth and hiding were written while trying to avoid leaving a loophole.
Write everything in clear and consistent language. It's pretty terrible how ambiguous 5e is. They can't even stick with a single meaning when they discuss cover, for instance. I want the rules to read as if WotC had a programmer write the rules, had an english major translate them, (without using a thesaurus/synonyms) and then finally had a powergamer, a story teller, and a lawyer proofread and play test. Yeah, the more I read the text the less I like the prose style.
DMs should crawl before they run. Nice. :smallbiggrin:


Teaching GMs.
The only edition that ever tried teaching the game was BECMI in 1983. The Into the Unknown module (B1) had a whole 'how to DM section'
Sadly, it wasn't even in all printings of the Basic game ...

As to "minor and major" feats, disagree. I also do not find racial feats to be a good idea, at all.
If some feats are just too lame, improve them. A feat costs an ASI. Make sure that it adds value to the character.

[Eldariel]

More interesting martial combat system.

A complex martial class (or 3) and a simple casting class (coulda been Warlock but instead they made it this...thing).

Skills as a whole.

Non-casters with real high level class features to make them better at many things they can do proportionally to what high level spells do for spellcasting.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would like the rules to be tighter. Or, in many cases, actually there to begin with.

I appreciate that there will be some situations where the DM will have to make an adjudication, but this shouldn't be necessary for basic questions regarding spells and abilities.

[Hael]

Combat needs to be more interesting. Short/long rest rework. Less ambiguity in the damn writing (I swear this edition has the most ridiculous rule lawyering fights I’ve ever been a part off, especially for simple and obvious things)

More lore in the rule books please.

There are too many builds that end up doing exactly the same two or three actions every combat. Options are nice.

Better progressions in class features, we shouldn’t have garbage capstones.

One could imagine adding a lot more depth to spells in this day and age with so many previous editions and video games to draw inspiration from. Why not spells that interact with other spells (this creates an oil slick and this sets the whole thing ablaze)? Why not a more varied condition list, with more buffs and de buffs possible.

Please don’t believe the myth that complexity scares newbies away.

[Dr. Cliché]

A few other things (albeit including some that have already been covered):

- A better skill system. I hate this binary system where a person can only ever be skilled or unskilled with nothing in between. Also, I'd like to see some of the old skills brought back. I can't begin to count the number of times a player has asked about a particular action, and I was stuck scratching my head as a looked at the list of skills, with no clue as to which one the given action/knowledge would fall under. I can understand combining a few skills together, like turning Spot and Listen into Perception or rolling Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, but was it really necessary to, say, remove half the Knowledge skills?

- Monsters that are more than just sacks of hp. It seems like vast numbers of monsters have had abilities and spells stripped away for no good reason. Also, what was wrong with the term 'Spell-Like Ability'?

- More mundane options. Or at least options that aren't just more bloody spells. I maintain that Fighters and Rogues should have used the Warblade and Swordsage, respectively, as their starting points. Even if WotC wanted a simple, melee class, we already have the Barbarian for that. Let the fighter have some actual options in combat. Likewise, let the Rogue be about more than the dull-as-dishwater Sneak Attack ability. Rogues are the sort of class that should be dripping with options and tricks, yet the current version could probably be auto-piloted with a few 'if-then' statements.

- I was going to suggest a redesign of the Sorcerer but on reflection I'd like to see most of the classed reworked in some way. :smalltongue:

[EggKookoo]

Please don’t believe the myth that complexity scares newbies away.

It's funny, I notice a lot of "improvements" in this thread are just adding more stuff. Not all -- I think they need to simplify the spell system, for example.

Perhaps it might be more useful to think of something 5e could do better without adding more complexity?

Also, the tendency to avoid complexity is probably greater for the grognards than the newbies. Newbies don't know any better. Experienced players are the ones who know you probably don't need most of that stuff.

[ZRN]

Also, the tendency to avoid complexity is probably greater for the grognards than the newbies. Newbies don't know any better. Experienced players are the ones who know you probably don't need most of that stuff.

I think it's more of a personality type or playstyle preference issue. Some people (new and experienced alike) enjoy having a bunch of build options and tactical details, and others enjoy a more streamlined rules experience so they can focus on their character's perspective. That's why non-D&D RPGs, which have a pretty universally "experienced" player base, vary from rules-light to rules-heavy.

Most "grognards" will probably agree that depth is the goal, not complexity in itself; they'll differ on how of the latter they'll accept to get more of the former.

[Diego]

A few other things (albeit including some that have already been covered):

- Monsters that are more than just sacks of hp. It seems like vast numbers of monsters have had abilities and spells stripped away for no good reason. Also, what was wrong with the term 'Spell-Like Ability'?

- More mundane options. Or at least options that aren't just more bloody spells. I maintain that Fighters and Rogues should have used the Warblade and Swordsage, respectively, as their starting points. Even if WotC wanted a simple, melee class, we already have the Barbarian for that. Let the fighter have some actual options in combat. Likewise, let the Rogue be about more than the dull-as-dishwater Sneak Attack ability. Rogues are the sort of class that should be dripping with options and tricks, yet the current version could probably be auto-piloted with a few 'if-then' statements.

- I was going to suggest a redesign of the Sorcerer but on reflection I'd like to see most of the classed reworked in some way. :smalltongue:

4e would like a friendly word with you.

[Waterdeep Merch]

CR and player damage. Too many encounters are essentially over at initiative just because players can absolutely paste anything at their CR when built and played competently. Because my players like optimizing their characters this means I'm forced to make random guesses about what they can and can't handle and the CR chart becomes next to worthless.

Special mention goes to boss fights, which are unbelievably underwhelming. Aside from breath weapons they deal little to no serious damage, don't have enough HP to last more than 2-3 rounds (less if the players get lucky crits!), and are completely reliant on minions to not end up a stain on their own carpet. Which becomes this *fun* balancing act of selecting minions the casters won't one-round with Fireball that won't then accidentally murder the party because numbers and action economy is the One True King of Combat. The balance on them straight up sucks and the DMG is entirely unhelpful.

[Eldariel]

4e would like a friendly word with you.

4e didn't really fix christmas tree, it streamlined classes by putting everyone into the same mold (which is not a popular position, nor one anyone in this thread is advocating), it botched up skill challenges something severe, etc. It also certainly didn't have Bounded Accuracy. I don't think pointing people who ask for martial complexity towards 4e is fair, useful or reasonable.

[Tes]

Not adding extra Rule complexity:
More Weakness and Resistance, mainly for mundane BPS.


Adding extra Rule complexity:
Second level of Weakness and Resistance (+/- 50% rather than 100%)
Second level of Advantage and Disadvantage (optional reroll for lvl 1 Advantage/Disadvantage, 2 dice as is for the new level 2)
Circumstance System on top of Advantage and Disadvantage (+/-5, making -5 with Advantage like GWM or Sharpshooter does a more used Mechanic)
One unique flavor trait for each class of weapon
more things to trade in Attacks for as Martial (Shove is great and all, but official Disarm would be neat)
Darkvision/Low Light Vision...

[catagent101]

I echo the need for an improved skill system. The Expertise class feature really needs to be more widely available, or even just part of the core skill system (I mean, if goblins can have expertise in Stealth...). I really dislike how rogues can just know more about magic than wizards and how a valor bard can easily outwrestle a fighter. Fighters and wizards should have those options available to them.

Another thing that D&D 5e seems to have a problem with is designers forgetting to explain things. Assuming DMs know how to dungeoncrawl for one, as mentioned. Another one that really irritates me is that the designers did distinguish between (in 3e parlance) supernatural and spellcasting abilities, but didn't explicitly say so in the rules, leading to various Sage Advices that basically explain 3e D&D to a 5e audience. It really needed better testing by newbies really.

Some smaller fiddles are I wish there was an official term (e.g. PF 2e's "heighten") for casting a spell at a level higher than its original. Another thing that would be nice is in the spell list to have which classes can cast the spell somewhere in the spells stat block a la 3e. They made it way more complicated to look up a spell than it should be. I shouldn't have to flip back to the spells table to see who can cast wish.

Another thing is that they should stop using spells for class features, like for example hunter's mark. It's a really good way to screw up newbies, because an essential feature is hidden away somewhere. And it allows for broken multiclass builds.

[Amechra]

My big frustration is ability scores.

Namely, the basic design of the rules essentially makes starting with your highest ability score at 16 or 17 practically mandatory. On top of that, if you're terrible at, say, Charisma? You're probably always going to be terrible at Charisma, because the opportunity cost to increase Charisma is so massive.

It'd be different if you got, say, a +1 from your ability score at 13 and a +2 at 18, with the rest of the "mandatory" numbers coming from somewhere else. Then you could actually roll for stats without shooting yourself square in the foot.

[JNAProductions]

I echo the need for an improved skill system. The Expertise class feature really needs to be more widely available, or even just part of the core skill system (I mean, if goblins can have expertise in Stealth...). I really dislike how rogues can just know more about magic than wizards and how a valor bard can easily outwrestle a fighter.

Another thing that D&D 5e seems to have a problem with is designers forgetting to explain things. Assuming DMs know how to dungeoncrawl for one, as mentioned. Another one that really irritates me is that the designers did distinguish between (in 3e parlance) supernatural and spellcasting abilities, but didn't explicitly say so in the rules, leading to various Sage Advices that basically explain 3e D&D to a 5e audience. It really needed better testing by newbies really.

Some smaller fiddles are I wish there was an official term (e.g. PF 2e's "heighten") for casting a spell at a level higher than its original. Another thing that would be nice is in the spell list to have which classes can cast the spell somewhere in the spells stat block a la 3e. They made it way more complicated to look up a spell than it should be. I shouldn't have to flip back to the spells table to see who can cast wish.

Another thing is that they should stop using spells for class features, like for example hunter's mark. It's a really good way to screw up newbies, because an essential feature is hidden away somewhere. And it allows for broken multiclass builds.

A Rogue who knows more about magical theory than a Wizard is someone who has dedicated (In-Character) tons of time and effort to studying magical theory, even if they can't cast spells themselves.
A Bard with Athletics Expertise and 16 Strength versus a Fighter with 18 Strength and proficiency in Athletics has a, at level 5...

A 57.25% chance of winning any given Athletics contest.
61.75% chance if they only need to tie.

But, the Fighter has two chances to break out of a grapple or initiate one successfully every round, to the Bard's one. So, if the Bard wants to grapple the Fighter and stop them from fleeing, they've only got around a 1/3 chance of actually succeeding.

[Tes]

A Rogue who knows more about magical theory than a Wizard is someone who has dedicated (In-Character) tons of time and effort to studying magical theory, even if they can't cast spells themselves.
A Bard with Athletics Expertise and 16 Strength versus a Fighter with 18 Strength and proficiency in Athletics has a, at level 5...

A 57.25% chance of winning any given Athletics contest.
61.75% chance if they only need to tie.

But, the Fighter has two chances to break out of a grapple or initiate one successfully every round, to the Bard's one. So, if the Bard wants to grapple the Fighter and stop them from fleeing, they've only got around a 1/3 chance of actually succeeding.

The problem with that is that the 17 INT lvl3 500 year old Elf Wizard couldn't beat the 14 INT lvl 3 16 year old Halfling Arcane Trickster who has a knack for Magic stuff if he wanted to.
Not to mention Arcana Clerics, who will never get a chance to raise the required INT anywhere near greatness (unless you want to mechanically gimp the character by dumping something important and putting your ASIs into 20 INT).

It would be nice if Skills and ability scores could be a bit more independent.

[Boci]

The problem with that is that the 17 INT lvl3 500 year old Elf Wizard couldn't beat the 14 INT lvl 3 16 year old Halfling Arcane Trickster who has a knack for Magic stuff if he wanted to.
Not to mention Arcana Clerics, who will never get a chance to raise the required INT anywhere near greatness (unless you want to mechanically gimp the character by dumping something important and putting your ASIs into 20 INT).

The default 5e fluff is now that elves aren't 500 years old. They do their adventuring before they reach adulthood, i.e. 100 years or so of age.

[JNAProductions]

The problem with that is that the 17 INT lvl3 500 year old Elf Wizard couldn't beat the 14 INT lvl 3 16 year old Halfling Arcane Trickster who has a knack for Magic stuff if he wanted to.
Not to mention Arcana Clerics, who will never get a chance to raise the required INT anywhere near greatness.

The Wizard is a much more powerful caster. They know less arcane theory (by -1 on a d20 roll) but have 2nd level spells and a lot more slots from more schools than the Trickster. Moreover, the Rogue player has spent build resources to be good at Arcana. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be good at it?

Now, I am all for opening up Prodigy to more than just part-human characters, or amending Skilled to allow it to let you gain an Expertise, but if one player spends more build resources to be good at Arcana than another, I have no issue with them being better at Arcana.

[Hal]

Time. I mean in the overworld how likely do you face more than 1 wild encounter in a day. So SR and LR recharge abilities should factor that in more. Kinda like gritty. I run LR and SR both as nighttime sleep cycles. 2 nights (SR rest) and the third night if the first two nights were uninterrupted for anything then you get the benefits of a LR. Still not quite right.
And speaking of time the 30 second battles just feels weird...i fudge this saying that the combat we actually rolled was more like a highlight real. Most combats took at least a few minutes and up to 1/2hr time passing thus far.

The DMG has alternate rules for rest cycles, with a short rest taking a night and a long rest taking a week of downtime. Not necessarily great for every game, but makes the difference in rests important.

[Dork_Forge]

I echo the need for an improved skill system. The Expertise class feature really needs to be more widely available, or even just part of the core skill system (I mean, if goblins can have expertise in Stealth...). I really dislike how rogues can just know more about magic than wizards and how a valor bard can easily outwrestle a fighter.

Another thing is that they should stop using spells for class features, like for example hunter's mark. It's a really good way to screw up newbies, because an essential feature is hidden away somewhere. And it allows for broken multiclass builds.

If you make Expertise more widely available it waters down how special it actually is though. I think part of this issue is the false assumption that goes like this: Wizard's should have Expertise in Arcana, Clerics should have Expertise in Religion. They shouldn't have Expertsie, their knowledge of those subjects come from the ability to choose that proficiency from their class at all. Expertise shows a degree of skill/knowledge above the average for a proficient person, if all Wizards get Expertise in Arcana for example then they are setting a new baseline (and alienating all of the other Arcane casters who would only get proficiency). Why should a Wizard be even better at Arcana than a Warlock or Sorcerer when they already are (their primary stat ties into it) for example? If a Rogue knows more about magic than a Wizard it's because they've spent the time (in game) to do so and invested a class feature (at the meta level) to achieve that.

Fully agree about stopping the use of spells and spell like abilities for class features, I get it from a design standpoint, but it makes everything so bland and unstatisfying.

[Tes]

The default 5e fluff is now that elves aren't 500 years old. They do their adventuring before they reach adulthood, i.e. 100 years or so of age.

But if you didn't give a damn about the average and wanted to play that Elf Wizard geezer who wanted to go out and see the world before he bites it after studying the secrets of magic theory for half a millennium you'd still lose to that Halfling kid because he has that knack and you don't.

Mechanical restrictions impairing player decision it shouldn't realistically be infringing on. Doesn't bother me tbh, I'm fine with it, but the Rogue beating anyone unable or unwilling to pick up the Prodigy Feat with a 1 level Class dip is kinda silly on several levels.

[JNAProductions]

But if you didn't give a damn about the average and wanted to play that Elf Wizard geezer who wanted to go out and see the world before he bites it after studying the secrets of magic theory for half a millennium you'd still lose to that Halfling kid because he has that knack and you don't.

Mechanical restrictions impairing player decision it shouldn't realistically be infringing on. Doesn't bother me tbh, I'm fine with it, but the Rogue beating anyone unable or unwilling to pick up the Prodigy Feat with a 1 level Class dip is kinda silly on several levels.

That's more an issue with age being uncoupled from meta-level experience.

And that's something that 5E's actually better with than 3.5-in 3.5, if you want to have a great skill modifier, you're practically forced by the system to have gobs of HD and everything that comes with. In 5E, there's more freedom (for the DM at least) to declare that this sage has the stats of a commoner, except 18 Int and +10 to Arcana.

[Democratus]

But if you didn't give a damn about the average and wanted to play that Elf Wizard geezer who wanted to go out and see the world before he bites it after studying the secrets of magic theory for half a millennium you'd still lose to that Halfling kid because he has that knack and you don't.

Mechanical restrictions impairing player decision it shouldn't realistically be infringing on. Doesn't bother me tbh, I'm fine with it, but the Rogue beating anyone unable or unwilling to pick up the Prodigy Feat with a 1 level Class dip is kinda silly on several levels.

Clearly the geezer hasn't been doing much if he hasn't gotten to high levels in 500 years. An old slacker can be believably beat by a gifted youngster.

[blackjack50]

This thread is inspired by two threads, the one about errata, and the one speculating about a possible 5.5e.

I'm not talking about errata, because it's not one thing that would have to be changed, but a fundemental change to 5e you would like.

For me, it's monster types: they're so whishy-washy, and don't mean anything anyway except for a few certain spells. I really wish 5e had ironclad monster types, where each type of monster actually meant something. Likewise, certain things need better categorization. For example, I think that Owlbears should be beasts, but it doesn't matter if they are or are not: neither one effects the monster at all.

Simple...guns and explosives. The system is so simple that someone like me can focus on it and learn. It isn't too bogged down. Most of the rule and stuff flow logically and are easy to find and reference. :(

[Boci]

That's more an issue with age being uncoupled from meta-level experience.

And that's something that 5E's actually better with than 3.5-in 3.5, if you want to have a great skill modifier, you're practically forced by the system to have gobs of HD and everything that comes with. In 5E, there's more freedom (for the DM at least) to declare that this sage has the stats of a commoner, except 18 Int and +10 to Arcana.

Arguably though the better solution for both 3.5 and 5e is for the DM to doesn't bother with the modifier and just decides whether or not the NPC sage knows it.

[Dr. Cliché]

Second level of Weakness and Resistance (+/- 50% rather than 100%)

Why not just go back to the 3.5 version? It was vastly more flexible and the math wasn't any more difficult.



My big frustration is ability scores.

Namely, the basic design of the rules essentially makes starting with your highest ability score at 16 or 17 practically mandatory. On top of that, if you're terrible at, say, Charisma? You're probably always going to be terrible at Charisma, because the opportunity cost to increase Charisma is so massive.

It'd be different if you got, say, a +1 from your ability score at 13 and a +2 at 18, with the rest of the "mandatory" numbers coming from somewhere else. Then you could actually roll for stats without shooting yourself square in the foot.

I think AngryGM did a good article on ability scores. The upshot was that they really need redesigning. Mainly because in the past they'd been largely descriptive, granting minor bonuses at best. Now, though, they're directly tied into many key mechanics (and with Bonded Accuracy, it's much, much harder to find other bonuses to compensate for low ability scores). Hence, they should really be changed.

[Lupine]

I think AngryGM did a good article on ability scores. The upshot was that they really need redesigning. Mainly because in the past they'd been largely descriptive, granting minor bonuses at best. Now, though, they're directly tied into many key mechanics (and with Bonded Accuracy, it's much, much harder to find other bonuses to compensate for low ability scores). Hence, they should really be changed.

Did he? Interesting.

I have lot of respect for angry. He really knows his stuff, but occasionally, he takes shots he should not.
I don’t disagree that ability scores in 5e are not great, and need some revision.

However, I’m not sure that’s something easily done. Ability scores are pretty baked in with a lot of things, and so it isn’t too easy to fix them.

[Dr. Cliché]

Did he? Interesting.

I have lot of respect for angry. He really knows his stuff, but occasionally, he takes shots he should not.
I don’t disagree that ability scores in 5e are not great, and need some revision.

However, I’m not sure that’s something easily done. Ability scores are pretty baked in with a lot of things, and so it isn’t too easy to fix them.

I mean, he didn't actually hold out any hope that they'd ever be fixed. :smallwink:

Let's face it, even disregarding the mechanical complexities associated with changing or removing them, they're something of a sacred cow. Not even 4th Edition changed or removed any of them. :smalltongue:

[Evaar]

Better guidance for DMs. It's fine to have a system based on "rulings not rules" but they could have placed more emphasis on example scenarios to give DMs a better idea how certain interactions or checks should be conceived.

[kbob]

They need something for better grappling and a better reason to knock someone prone.

[Dork_Forge]

They need something for better grappling and a better reason to knock someone prone.

Advantage on attacks, disadvantage on attacks from them and costing them half their movement to stand up isn't a good reason to knock somone prone?

[Democratus]

I wish the spell list wasnt so bloated and was more thematically tight.

Yep. If I could only change one thing, this would be it.

[kbob]

Advantage on attacks, disadvantage on attacks from them and costing them half their movement to stand up isn't a good reason to knock somone prone?

No it’s not. You knock them down they stand up on their turn. Half their movement? Ok. Odds are they’re not going anywhere anyway and want to hit you. Can it be used at times. Ya. But they’re situational. If you have a second party member on the same enemy and they get their turn before the enemy does, then they can get advantage. You could use your first attack to knock them prone to get advantage on your second! But that is useless because you still role 2 20s and forgo the opportunity to hit and crit twice. You can knock down the caster! But he will probably misty step or dimension door away. Can it be used in specific situations sure. But so can true strike. You want to create a character that works off of knocking enemies prone? Probably not very effective. Again if the other party members are ganging up on the same enemy then ok. But again that’s situational and there are other ways to get advantage.

[JNAProductions]

No it’s not. You knock them down they stand up on their turn. Half their movement? Ok. Odds are they’re not going anywhere anyway and want to hit you. Can it be used at times. Ya. But they’re situational. If you have a second party member on the same enemy and they get their turn before the enemy does, then they can get advantage. You could use your first attack to knock them prone to get advantage on your second! But that is useless because you still role 2 20s and forgo the opportunity to hit and crit twice. You can knock down the caster! But he will probably misty step or dimension door away. Can it be used in specific situations sure. But so can true strike. You want to create a character that works off of knocking enemies prone? Probably not very effective. Again if the other party members are ganging up on the same enemy then ok. But again that’s situational and there are other ways to get advantage.

Grapple, then knock prone. It's not a universally good tactic, but if you've got melee friends or your ranged buddies are attacking someone else, they're on the ground and they cannot stand up. All their attacks are made with disadvantage, and you have advantage to smack 'em. And you can do it in one turn at level 2, if you're willing to blow an Action Surge on it. Any martial-type can do it in one turn at level 5.

It's not always the best idea-and that's fine. But it's a powerful tactic when used right.

[kbob]

Grapple, then knock prone. It's not a universally good tactic, but if you've got melee friends or your ranged buddies are attacking someone else, they're on the ground and they cannot stand up. All their attacks are made with disadvantage, and you have advantage to smack 'em. And you can do it in one turn at level 2, if you're willing to blow an Action Surge on it. Any martial-type can do it in one turn at level 5.

It's not always the best idea-and that's fine. But it's a powerful tactic when used right.

Ya that can be useful at times. But like you insinuated it’s not typically the best practice and situational again.

[Dork_Forge]

No it’s not. You knock them down they stand up on their turn. Half their movement? Ok. Odds are they’re not going anywhere anyway and want to hit you. Can it be used at times. Ya. But they’re situational. If you have a second party member on the same enemy and they get their turn before the enemy does, then they can get advantage. You could use your first attack to knock them prone to get advantage on your second! But that is useless because you still role 2 20s and forgo the opportunity to hit and crit twice. You can knock down the caster! But he will probably misty step or dimension door away. Can it be used in specific situations sure. But so can true strike. You want to create a character that works off of knocking enemies prone? Probably not very effective. Again if the other party members are ganging up on the same enemy then ok. But again that’s situational and there are other ways to get advantage.

Is part of your argument against this really that you can roll two 20s... and you call knocking people prone situational? Some things you should consider about knocking prone:

-You don't have to burn an attack to do it, Open Hand Monks and Battle Masters can tie it to a full attack, paladins can use Thunderous Smite to knock prone, Bladelocks using Eldritch Smite etc.

-Spells can knock prone for martials to take advantage

-You can use the prone condition for hit and run tactics, not only will your AoO be at disadvantage (if you provoke one), but having lost half their speed the enemy likely won't be able to close distance on you again

-More situational, but a ranged party member that has ended up in melee can have their disadvantage negated

-It's not really uncommon to have multiple characters using melee attacks (be it martials, melee spell attacks like Spiritual Weapon etc.) and if you have a big bad or just one larger enemy (party against an Ogre/Troll etc.) they'll be benefiting by default. I don't think solo enemies (or at least the party have a numerical advantage) is particularly uncommon.

-Because everyone can do it, you can't have it be too good, like TWF

[JNAProductions]

Ya that can be useful at times. But like you insinuated it’s not typically the best practice and situational again.

Good thing it doesn't require you to take fourteen feats then, right?

This isn't 3.5. You're baseline is competency. All you need to grapple with moderate chances of success is a decent Strength score OR Athletics proficiency. If you have both, like most Strength-based characters will, you'll usually succeed against monsters. And if you have Advantage (like from Rage) or Expertise (from a Rogue dip) you'll pass with ease.

It's not a universally good option-it's a frequently useful one, but sometimes, you're better off just stabbing people. And that's okay.

[catagent101]

Now, I am all for opening up Prodigy to more than just part-human characters, or amending Skilled to allow it to let you gain an Expertise, but if one player spends more build resources to be good at Arcana than another, I have no issue with them being better at Arcana.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the rogue being good at Arcana or a bard being good with Athletics. Those are valid character options. I was commenting on how wizards and fighters are incapable of reaching that acumen by default in the system.

[JNAProductions]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the rogue being good at Arcana or a bard being good with Athletics. Those are valid character options. I was commenting on how wizards and fighters are incapable of reaching that acumen by default in the system.

Honest question. Have you ever seen a Rogue take Expertise in Arcana?

Because I talked to my friends about if they'd seen it, and they said "Yes, I've personally taken Expertise in Arcana." I asked for more details, and guess what? That was on their Wizard PC. Not a Rogue.

It's an issue that can technically exist, but it really seems to be much more a talking point than an actual issue. I do agree it could done better, but considering the amount of times I've seen it brought up, you'd think it's a serious problem, instead of a niche edge case that rarely if ever happens.

[kbob]

Again those are situational. The raw advantage for knocking someone prone is lacking unless you can find a way to combine it with an attack.
Everyone can do it, yes. As they should be able to if they have the strength score. It shouldn’t require a feat tree. But where 3.5 did get it right is that there was a negative for standing up in front of someone. It took your entire move to stand (which was too much) but it also gave an AoO (OA in 5e). Is an OA a bit much? maybe. But there needs to be something in my opinion.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think there definitely needs to be something between prone being a death-sentence and prone being 'You knock the orc down. He gets up again on his turn and attacks you normally.'

[catagent101]

Honest question. Have you ever seen a Rogue take Expertise in Arcana?

Because I talked to my friends about if they'd seen it, and they said "Yes, I've personally taken Expertise in Arcana." I asked for more details, and guess what? That was on their Wizard PC. Not a Rogue.

It's an issue that can technically exist, but it really seems to be much more a talking point than an actual issue. I do agree it could done better, but considering the amount of times I've seen it brought up, you'd think it's a serious problem, instead of a niche edge case that rarely if ever happens.

No, I personally haven't, but I hardly have a wealth of D&D experience. I did once build a character that did though after I noticed that, but like many of my ideas, it never saw play. I agree it's not a major problem, it's irritating more than it is a gameplay issue, especially since high level play (where it would be most noticeable I'd imagine) is rare. Not that the 5e skill system couldn't use reworking.

[Dork_Forge]

Again those are situational. The raw advantage for knocking someone prone is lacking unless you can find a way to combine it with an attack.
Everyone can do it, yes. As they should be able to if they have the strength score. It shouldn’t require a feat tree. But where 3.5 did get it right is that there was a negative for standing up in front of someone. It took your entire move to stand (which was too much) but it also gave an AoO (OA in 5e). Is an OA a bit much? maybe. But there needs to be something in my opinion.

Most characters that are likely to shove prone are also ones that have Extra Attack to take advantage (with the option of bonus attacks like PAM and TWF). Everything is situational to some degree, if something was always a great option it becomes too good to pass up and you end up with the mechanical equivalent of the Hexblade (of course I knock prone, why wouldn't I?).

An opportunity attack is too much, it opens the floodgates to Rogues (who get Experise...) to regularly off turn Sneak Attack with minimal investment. You need to remember that everything prone brings will also apply to PCs (and Prone isn't that uncommon of a condition for lower CR monsters to apply).

[kbob]

If a PC has extra attack they go back to the 2 20s. If they use an ability to knock prone, it often requires a BA negating a third attack from PAM (I realize this is not alway the case like open hand can be done with flurry). The only problem the OA supposedly had was slowing down gameplay. I know others don’t feel the same but that was the alleged reasoning for getting rid of OA on a list of things like casting in melee. Was it ever used on players. Yes. Fighting wolves at low levels could be intense. They could attack and get an auto trip attempt. Did it kill off PCs. Not really. I can’t think of a time it did in any of our games. Did players use it at strategy? Yes, if they had the strength or build to use it. Did it ever ruin encounters for DMs? As one, I can say I never had a player ruin my encounter do to knocking enemies prone. BBEG have minions and intelligent enemies know that’s a tactic and have contingency plans if needed. Sometimes those plans are no more complicated than “we still outnumber you”. I think it promotes creativity but you may disagree. I certainly don’t think it breaks anything, to have something negative anyway. I would say the same for casting in melee as well.
An alleged possibility is you can get up with half movement but enemies get adv on melee attacks till end of your next turn unless you use a defense action to stand up. Just a thought. Again I realize you disagree but I would like to see something.

[Dork_Forge]

If a PC has extra attack they go back to the 2 20s. If they use an ability to knock prone, it often requires a BA negating a third attack from PAM (I realize this is not alway the case like open hand can be done with flurry). The only problem the OA supposedly had was slowing down gameplay. I know others don’t feel the same but that was the alleged reasoning for getting rid of OA on a list of things like casting in melee. Was it ever used on players. Yes. Fighting wolves at low levels could be intense. They could attack and get an auto trip attempt. Did it kill off PCs. Not really. I can’t think of a time it did in any of our games. Did players use it at strategy? Yes, if they had the strength or build to use it. Did it ever ruin encounters for DMs? As one, I can say I never had a player ruin my encounter do to knocking enemies prone. BBEG have minions and intelligent enemies know that’s a tactic and have contingency plans if needed. Sometimes those plans are no more complicated than “we still outnumber you”. I think it promotes creativity but you may disagree. I certainly don’t think it breaks anything, to have something negative anyway. I would say the same for casting in melee as well.
An alleged possibility is you can get up with half movement but enemies get adv on melee attacks till end of your next turn unless you use a defense action to stand up. Just a thought. Again I realize you disagree but I would like to see something.

How often are you/your players rolling two successive crits on the same turn..? The advantage from prone is arguably better (this varies based on build used and party composition obviously) for crit fishing and the only ability I listed that uses a bonus action for a Prone effect is Thunderous Smite (which the primary motivation for using is the extra damage anyway).

I just think that an opportunity attack in 5e has too many potential stacking issues (Warcaster casting, Smites, off turn Sneak Attacks) to be a good choice for the addition. There's also the small chance that a Battlemaster can impose a prone loop, where every turn the enemy gets up to just get Trip Attacked again, which whilst funny, will lead to a lot of boss monsters getting destroyed fairly quickly.

Disadvantage on your attacks unless you Dodge seems more reasonable, but it's still a very heavy cost for something that requires no investment to access.

[Lupine]

How often are you/your players rolling two successive crits on the same turn..? The advantage from prone is arguably better (this varies based on build used and party composition obviously) for crit fishing

Crit fishing is a fair use of that strat. However, the point being made is that with advantage, you have the same chance to hit the target at least once, with a potential of double the damage.

Why wouldn’t you just attack twice?
(See Zee Bashew video on true strike. Same principle applies. Now, it is a good strat for higher level fighters, who can make three attacks, and effectively get a net gain of a d20 roll. Or for flurrying monks, for that matter.)

[JNAProductions]

Crit fishing is a fair use of that strat. However, the point being made is that with advantage, you have the same chance to hit the target at least once, with a potential of double the damage.

Why wouldn’t you just attack twice?
(See Zee Bashew video on true strike. Same principle applies. Now, it is a good strat for higher level fighters, who can make three attacks, and effectively get a net gain of a d20 roll. Or for flurrying monks, for that matter.)

Because fights last more than one turn.

Turn 1, Grapple and Prone.
Turn 2, two attacks with advantage.
Turn 3, two attacks with advantage.

And that's if you're solo-allies will also gain benefits, if they're melee.

[Dork_Forge]

Crit fishing is a fair use of that strat. However, the point being made is that with advantage, you have the same chance to hit the target at least once, with a potential of double the damage.

Why wouldn’t you just attack twice?

If that's the point being made, it could be written a little better than you can crit twice (which whilst true, is hardly probably enough to be a factor here)

-You may have multiple attacks left (Monks, PAM users, tier 3 Fighters, Beserker Barbarians, Two Weapon Fighters), if you're a Fighter you might want to trade one attack for 3 attacks at advantage (Action Surge). You might not even be trading an attack for this (Trip Attack, Open Hand, Thunderous Smite etc.).

-There may be a source of disadvantage (poisoned, visibility etc.) that you want to neutralise

-Locking an enemy down (most things won't be getting far on half speed)

-Hit and run (OA at disadvantage)

-Party members that would benefit from them also being prone (any melee characters)

Edit: Just saw your edit, True Strike is a terrible comparison to prone:

-It eats up your entire action unlike the various ways of knocking prone

-It specifically doesn't take effect until your next turn, so not only does it not benefit from Quicken, you could just lose concentration by then

-It's on one attack, where as prone is on every melee attack in 5ft as long as the condition is in place (which can be enforced with grappling)

-It doesn't benefit anyone but you!

[kbob]

How often are you/your players rolling two successive crits on the same turn..? The advantage from prone is arguably better (this varies based on build used and party composition obviously) for crit fishing and the only ability I listed that uses a bonus action for a Prone effect is Thunderous Smite (which the primary motivation for using is the extra damage anyway).

I just think that an opportunity attack in 5e has too many potential stacking issues (Warcaster casting, Smites, off turn Sneak Attacks) to be a good choice for the addition. There's also the small chance that a Battlemaster can impose a prone loop, where every turn the enemy gets up to just get Trip Attacked again, which whilst funny, will lead to a lot of boss monsters getting destroyed fairly quickly.

Disadvantage on your attacks unless you Dodge seems more reasonable, but it's still a very heavy cost for something that requires no investment to access.

There are ways that advantage on a single attack is worth it... situationally. But that is not the norm. If player X gets 2 attack with multi attack he can attack twice or knock prone then attack again with adv if prone succeeds. 2 scenarios:
1. If he does the latter, he gets one attack but with 2 20s. Odds are he will hit and has increased his chances of critting. 5% on the first role and another chance at 5%. Best case, he crits ONE time. So he does double damage. Odds are he hits with no crit. There is also a chance he misses but not likely. So at best he gets one crit, odds are one hit, unlucky he misses.
2. If he does the former, he is still roling 2 20s, only one for each attack. On the first, he gets a 5% chance he crits ONE time. Odds are he hits with no crit. Very Unlikely chance he misses. However, he gets those same odds for his SECOND attack. Which leaves him with best case, but highly unlikely, 2 crits (does happen though); unlikely to crit once and miss once; less unlikely to crit once and hit once; likely to hit TWICE (netting one more hit than the likeliness of the first scenario); unlikely to hit once once and miss once (less likely than hitting once on first scenario but nets the same); and (just as unlikely to miss your ONLY attack in 1st scenario) Very unlikely chance he misses both.
The leaves us with better odds for second scenario. The odds are he will hit one extra time than the first. He has the same odds for EITHER attack to be a crit as the first has for its ONLY attack, he is unlikely to get just one hit which is the likely scenario for scenario one and is unlikely to miss both attacks which net him no more loss than scenario two missing.
Now if you have some thing that can make it worth the risk like having a lot of sneak attack, then go for it. But even then you need someone/something else to knock the enemy prone as Rogues dont have extra attack.
Its all situational. Which is my point. Can it be used of course. But its situational. And not as in everything is technically situational. It's not gonna be a "go to" for most party/players. My opinion is that there needs to be a mechanical disadvantage other than what it is. Just my opinion though.

[Dork_Forge]

There are ways that advantage on a single attack is worth it... situationally. But that is not the norm. If player X gets 2 attack with multi attack he can attack twice or knock prone then attack again with adv if prone succeeds. 2 scenarios:
1. If he does the latter, he gets one attack but with 2 20s. Odds are he will hit and has increased his chances of critting. 5% on the first role and another chance at 5%. Best case, he crits ONE time. So he does double damage. Odds are he hits with no crit. There is also a chance he misses but not likely. So at best he gets one crit, odds are one hit, unlucky he misses.
2. If he does the former, he is still roling 2 20s, only one for each attack. On the first, he gets a 5% chance he crits ONE time. Odds are he hits with no crit. Very Unlikely chance he misses. However, he gets those same odds for his SECOND attack. Which leaves him with best case, but highly unlikely, 2 crits (does happen though); unlikely to crit once and miss once; less unlikely to crit once and hit once; likely to hit TWICE (netting one more hit than the likeliness of the first scenario); unlikely to hit once once and miss once (less likely than hitting once on first scenario but nets the same); and (just as unlikely to miss your ONLY attack in 1st scenario) Very unlikely chance he misses both.
The leaves us with better odds for second scenario. The odds are he will hit one extra time than the first. He has the same odds for EITHER attack to be a crit as the first has for its ONLY attack, he is unlikely to get just one hit which is the likely scenario for scenario one and is unlikely to miss both attacks which net him no more loss than scenario two missing.
Now if you have some thing that can make it worth the risk like having a lot of sneak attack, then go for it. But even then you need someone/something else to knock the enemy prone as Rogues dont have extra attack.
Its all situational. Which is my point. Can it be used of course. But its situational. And not as in everything is technically situational. It's not gonna be a "go to" for most party/players. My opinion is that there needs to be a mechanical disadvantage other than what it is. Just my opinion though.

That's a very narrow view of prone as a condition though, it's assuming that 1) you're trading an attack to gain the condition and 2)that you're the only one benefiting from it and doesn't consider that it can be paired with grappling to keep the enemy prone.

In terms of mechanical disadvantages to being prone, there's already three:

-Attacks against you within 5ft have advantage

-It eats half of your movement to stand up

-Your melee attacks will be at disadvantage

[kbob]

That's a very narrow view of prone as a condition though, it's assuming that 1) you're trading an attack to gain the condition and 2)that you're the only one benefiting from it and doesn't consider that it can be paired with grappling to keep the enemy prone.

In terms of mechanical disadvantages to being prone, there's already three:

-Attacks against you within 5ft have advantage

-It eats half of your movement to stand up

-Your melee attacks will be at disadvantage

I mentioned previously about others attacking the same enemy in melee. Grappling him prone helps if people are around. Teaming up on the same guy usually helps taking that one guy out for more reasons than one. Hope he doesnt have buddies though. As far as the rest? He just stands up with half movement and attacks you like he was going to do anyway.

[Bannan_mantis]

Maybe some class variants, like options to play variant classes which are thematically identical to preexisting ones but offer changes in mechanical ways. I feel like this could work since you could, for example, create a variant fighter class that's official and maybe comes with things like maneuvers or their own version of a warlock's invocations (i.e. instead of gaining linear class abilities they can choose from a list of things, maybe call them 'battle tactics' or something) but still also have the base fighter class from the PHB. Then you could basically have the basic PHB fighter for people who prefer the simple linear playstyle of them but the variant fighter for people who want genuine tactical depth. This said I could see this getting complicated if you tell people "oh well this is the fighter, but this is also the fighter" so maybe just rename the classes too but still it'd be fun to see things like this which offer more choices to players

[Man_Over_Game]

Things 5e did better?

I wish it changed the fact that it makes you choose between story and tactics, considering its big pull is doing both at the same time.

I can pick between Repelling Blast or Mask of Many Faces. Both are really interactive and fun, but having to choose one or the other, when they solve different problems and don't normally compete with each another, means you're choosing to have one pillar of the game fail.

What does a Paladin offer in the wilds?
What does a Barbarian offer in the city?

5e was supposed to have a 3 pillar system, using Exploration, Socialization, and Combat, but that fails to hold up when someone can sell one pillar to excel in another.

This is exacerbated when that option (to sell one pillar of gameplay for another) is not equal with all playstyles (a Ranger cannot choose to sell their Exploration expertise for Combat, despite the fact that a Warlock can).

[Hael]

Most "grognards" will probably agree that depth is the goal, not complexity in itself; they'll differ on how of the latter they'll accept to get more of the former.

Well said! As an example, Thac0 was needlessly complex but at its core had very little depth, and was written down in a ridiculous representation that was improved a thousand times by 5e. On the other hand, a spell like counterspell is simple but also offers very limited combat depth.

Contrast that with a video game like bg2 or NwN, which had globe, dispel magic, magic image and breach spell wars, which actually were surprisingly fun. There was always multiple counterplay options available to any spell move and the PvP versions of that game in NwN were really interesting.

From a design point of view, the mecha is to have a game with a low accessibility floor, but with mechanics that provides an eternal ramp of depth as your skill increases, but there can't be a ramp if everything is explicitly castrated to make the floor as low as possible for everyone.

[HappyDaze]

But if you didn't give a damn about the average and wanted to play that Elf Wizard geezer who wanted to go out and see the world before he bites it after studying the secrets of magic theory for half a millennium you'd still lose to that Halfling kid because he has that knack and you don't.

Mechanical restrictions impairing player decision it shouldn't realistically be infringing on. Doesn't bother me tbh, I'm fine with it, but the Rogue beating anyone unable or unwilling to pick up the Prodigy Feat with a 1 level Class dip is kinda silly on several levels.

This is D&D 5e. PC age doesn't mean anything. You no longer get mentally better and physically worse as you age. You also don't gain any experience for being older (and most PCs do all of their leveling in a very narrow band of their lifespan). Like it or not, age is merely a cosmetic descriptor. Is this something you really want to change as errata?

[FaerieGodfather]

My first attempt at this was excessively negative, so I'm trying again:

Skill Unlocks: The difference between nonproficient/proficient or proficient/expertise or 1st level/20th level simply isn't big enough. I might not like Bounded Accuracy, but I do understand the benefits. Instead of adding more numbers go up, provide other benefits for the intersection of proficiency/expertise and level: maybe a minimum possible result on the d20, or even real PF Skill Unlocks.

Multiclassing: This is the hill I have been dying on for the last fifteen years. I'm not saying that D&D's multiclassing rules should "work like AD&D", but they should support and encourage combos that were legal in AD&D... and at least generally discourage combos that were specifically prohibited. 5e's rules weirdly favor CHA based spellcasters, weirdly disfavor any/all multiclassed warrior types, and flat out do not support X/X or Y/Y/Y combinations outside of a very few corner cases.

Races/Subraces: These are supposed to represent discrete populations of racial variants in a setting, but in practical terms they're really only designed to support different class combinations. Just make them modular, like in Skills & Powers or Pathfinder.

[Strigon]

Ya that can be useful at times. But like you insinuated it’s not typically the best practice and situational again.

And why is that a problem?
Either it's situational or it's typically the best practice; do you think pushing foes down should replace making an attack as the default action taken by fighters?

You push foes down when it's tactically advantageous to do so. It sometimes, but not always, tactically advantageous to do so.
This is a feature, not a bug.


Anyway, as for things 5e could have done better?
Well, making the monsters feel different for one. Most monsters are reskinned variants of a sack of hitpoints dealing xd6 damage per round, split over y attacks.
Some nastier ones have extra abilities, but these abilities are usually just imposing disadvantage on attacks.

Sure, things get more interesting when you mix types, but even then you can usually replace each monster type with another monster of the same CR, and have a virtually identical fight.

Adding more depth to character creation.
Look, frankly, I applaud their choice to do away with skill points. Adding skill points every level was tedious. Making a brand new high-level character was even more so, especially if you took a class that gave you a lot of skill points.
The issue is that there aren't really any choices to make as you level up. Every fourth level, you gain an ASI or a feat. But the choice there is usually pretty clear, until you max out your relevant stat(s). Then, unless you're choosing new spells or abilities, your character has no options for the rest of their growth. You've started down a path, and it's a straight line to the end.
This is compounded by the limitation on magic items (another move I agree with in general,) because now you can't be all that unique in your equipment, either.

I love 5e, but these are two pretty big gripes I have with it.

[kbob]

And why is that a problem?
Either it's situational or it's typically the best practice; do you think pushing foes down should replace making an attack as the default action taken by fighters?

You push foes down when it's tactically advantageous to do so. It sometimes, but not always, tactically advantageous to do so.
This is a feature, not a bug.


Anyway, as for things 5e could have done better?
For starters, I don’t know if it’s intentional or not but how you state your point and then just go on to say “Anyway, as for things 5e could have done better?” comes across as rude. My views and opinions are my views and opinions. You don’t have to share them. Matter of fact if you disagree I think it’s great. The world would be boring if we all thought the same way about everything.
That said, what do I think is wrong with things being situational? Well I did address that in other statements.
Technically everything is situational. But there is an inference with that statement that many understand when used. “What’s wrong with True Strike?” “It’s too situational”. People use it all the time. But to answer the question again, If you want to do that (prone + grapple), can someone else come up and attack with advantage? Yes. Is that ideal, maybe. More so if more than one other PC does. But at the cost of your actions. Is it worth it,? not usually but sometimes. Your actions are used up to potentially give advantage to someone(s) else. More than one round of attacking would ALMOST be necessary to be worth it. Maybe if the second guy was a high level fighter one round could work with all of his attacks.
And that’s if there is not a group of enemies. They usually don’t come by themselves. If he has friends you now lost an action/attacks that could have been used to do damage to help thin out numbers or something else to help with action economy. Anyway, I suspect you probably don’t agree and again that’s cool. But I just wanted to address it again because of the perceived tone.

[thereaper]

It wasn't until I became a DM and my players started becoming confused every time they had to level up that I realized that 5e's classes have too many class features. For the sorts of people who frequent forums like these, it's very easy because we know it all already, but for new players it's a lot to remember. They can't even remember all their normal features, let alone the consumable magic items I give them. Each level makes the issue worse, and none of them are even playing the really complex ones like cleric or wizard.

[Asisreo1]

It wasn't until I became a DM and my players started becoming confused every time they had to level up that I realized that 5e's classes have too many class features. For the sorts of people who frequent forums like these, it's very easy because we know it all already, but for new players it's a lot to remember. They can't even remember all their normal features, let alone the consumable magic items I give them. Each level makes the issue worse, and none of them are even playing the really complex ones like cleric or wizard.
People on these forums really underestimate how many features a new player has to remember even as a champion fighter.

It's easy for those who catch on quick but a first-timer can have difficulty knowing whether the damage roll adds proficiency or not. Or if they need to meet or exceed a dice roll. Or if their modifier goes up by one when they increase their score by one. Or the difference between their longbow and shortbow. Or whether they're allowed to improvise. Or what their hit dice do. Or how much their equipment weighs. Or the difference between a short rest or a long rest. Or what a "passive Perception" is. Or why their spellcasting ability is prepared when another is based on known. Or what a cantrip is. Or how much exp they have. Or what their alignment mean. Or how to use inspiration. Or what their armor class is. Or how to make a saving throw. Or what a reaction is. Or how readying an action works. Or how stealth works. Or how cover works. Or how resistances work. Or how to calculate their spell DC. Or when to use action surge. Or what action surge actually does. Or what their race features are. Or how jumping works. Or how difficult terrain works. Or how to disarm traps. Or how to dodge. Or what a grapple is. Or how to sunder. Or whether they can do "called shots." Or if they can use their bonus action thing as an action. Or falling prone. Or crawling. Or using a map. Or knowing their enemies. Or using their skills. Or owning tools. Or crafting. Or when they can take long rests. Or what a feat is. Or what a critical hit does. Or how nat20's work. Or how eating works. Or how torches work. Etc...

For anyone that's never played a game with numbers like a videogame, these questions are huge hurdles that they'll need to figure out. Even a veteran PC gamer might need to take 10+ sessions to understand more than half of these concerns.

And people want more complexity, but complexity for the sake of complexity with no "in" for new players can be a form of gatekeeping and elitism. Especially when you realize that there's a chance these options won't be perfectly balanced and if they don't pick the "optimal" uses, they'll be worse than those with system mastery.

The 5e spell list is very balanced and even they have bad spells. Some claim that choosing these bad spells completely ruin a character and a newbie might not know it. So isn't it better to have some anchor so a complete newbie can just focus on playing and knowing the rules rather than having to completely understand action economy before character creation? That's what champion is. If they think they're ready for complexity, they can multiclass or retire the character for a more complex one. They can even retcon them into a battlemaster if they wish.

[HappyDaze]

It wasn't until I became a DM and my players started becoming confused every time they had to level up that I realized that 5e's classes have too many class features. For the sorts of people who frequent forums like these, it's very easy because we know it all already, but for new players it's a lot to remember. They can't even remember all their normal features, let alone the consumable magic items I give them. Each level makes the issue worse, and none of them are even playing the really complex ones like cleric or wizard.

For these, I would recommend Shadow of the Demon Lord which covers most of the D&D bases with far more streamlined rules.

[NoxMiasma]

Honestly, what I really wish 5e had committed to is the varying mechanical engagement for both casters and martials. There's a baked-in assumption, in most editions of D&D, that if you want to play a character with a high level of mechanical engagement, you want to be a spellcaster. In 5e, the highest mechanical engagement fighter is still much simpler than the lowest mechanical engagement cleric. If you want to fiddle with all the bells and whistles, you need to play a caster, but if you want a nice, simple build to explode your enemies with fire, that's basically impossible.

Also, as someone who introduces new people to the hobby - flipping commit to the notion of tutorial levels! Martial characters get to work their way up in complexity from levels 1-3, but a spellcaster doesn't have that option, and it makes introducing newbies freaking complicated. The tutorial levels were a good idea, why the heck did they half-ass it!

[Waazraath]

I wish the spell list wasnt so bloated and was more thematically tight.

+ a lot for this one.

And in addition:
- allowing a few concepts that are not or only badly possible in 5e (shapechanger without spellcasting, grappler / judo / jitsu martial artist, thrown weapon user, mounted warrior)
- allowing a few new systems (adapted for 5e of course): I would like them to give binder, truenamer, martial adepts or psionics a good try (the latter in an official book not just UA).
- allowing more character (class/subclass) options, but also new feats, fighting styles, invocations, 4e-monk options, metamagic choices;
- more pure martial options (including a complicated one);
- a bit more guidance on skill DC's, even if only tucked away in DMG, or a few optional systems that DM's can choose from / draw inspiration from.

[Pex]

I'll not mention my usual stuff and instead mention something that rarely does get mentioned but has. A better table of contents index. When I look something up I want the page it's on. I DO NOT want to be told to look for something else in the table of contents to then get the page both things are mentioned. I don't care if they're related or part of the same rule. I want to know specifically the page number of the thing I explicitly looked in the table of contents to find.

[HappyDaze]

I'll not mention my usual stuff and instead mention something that rarely does get mentioned but has. A better table of contents. When I look something up I want the page it's on. I DO NOT want to be told to look for something else in the table of contents to then get the page both things are mentioned. I don't care if they're related or part of the same rule. I want to know specifically the page number of the thing I explicitly looked in the table of contents to find.

I think you mean the index, and if they could make the print on the index a bit bigger for those of us with less than perfect vision...yeah, that would be great.

[EggKookoo]

It wasn't until I became a DM and my players started becoming confused every time they had to level up that I realized that 5e's classes have too many class features. For the sorts of people who frequent forums like these, it's very easy because we know it all already, but for new players it's a lot to remember. They can't even remember all their normal features, let alone the consumable magic items I give them. Each level makes the issue worse, and none of them are even playing the really complex ones like cleric or wizard.

When threads similar to this one come along and ask "how would you change/improve XYZ about the game" I filter it through what my players complain about or struggle with. For me as a DM, 5e is damn near perfect, and I have the experience and freedom to houserule around any issues.

My players (largely newbies) don't exactly struggle with class complexity -- they like having the options. But there often is a sense that there's one good option and a handful of meh options. Spell choice is a good example of this. For the most part, spells come in must-have or wildly situational categories. It wouldn't be so bad if spellcasting was rare in the game and that kind of thing came with being a wizard. But my party right now is made up of a bard, an artificer, a druid, a warlock, and a rogue. And the rogue is about to go arcane trickster. I get the bind WotC was in -- they wanted a simpler option over 3e-style multiclassing, so just about every class can do a little of everything... sorta. But along with that should have come some streamlining of spells and how different casters work. I think more third- and half-casters should work more like the warlock, with set spell slot levels. Upcasting should be a spell specialist thing (honestly it should just be a wizard and maybe a cleric and artificer thing).

Other than spell variety feeling underwhelming, my players don't complain about much. They get the action economy, although they forget about things like holding their action. It took about three sessions for them to get comfortable with making checks, and not stopping to think "what's a check?" before hunting for their d20. They exhibit some new-player behavior still, such as mostly interacting with me and not as much with each other, and looking to me to drive the game forward rather than taking initiative themselves, but that has nothing to do with the game rules.

[MoiMagnus]

Also, as someone who introduces new people to the hobby - flipping commit to the notion of tutorial levels! Martial characters get to work their way up in complexity from levels 1-3, but a spellcaster doesn't have that option, and it makes introducing newbies freaking complicated. The tutorial levels were a good idea, why the heck did they half-ass it!

I agree on that.
[Moreover, it probably would also nerf as a side effect the "one-level multi-classing" which some peoples like to complain about.]

I'd really like a commitment to "level 1-3 are tutorials, level 11+ are for veterans".
[Yes, I'd also like more high level specialisations tools, like a "paragon subclass".]

[Jcp1195]

This is less what 5e itself could do better and more what the writers could do better:

The amount of adventure books we get yearly is ridiculous, given, from my personal perception, it takes nearly a year if not more to finish even one in most cases. That said, the only books we've gotten that add more (universal, not campaign specific) subclasses, races, spells etc. is Xanathar's guide, Volo's guide, Mordenkainen's tome, and to a lesser degree Elemental Evil Player's companion and Sword Coast. The writers should really direct more focus into building expanded options for players rather than pumping out so many adventures. It's been 6 years and we still don't have a PHB 2 or Monster Manual 2.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's been 6 years and we still don't have a PHB 2 or Monster Manual 2.
We don't need PHB2, nor MM 2. One thing they got right is that "core is core". There is already an abundant amount of choice for class and sub class. MC allows some more customization.

More Settings? Yeah. More Adventures? Yeah. More "Core" no.

And FWIW, Xanathar's Guide to Everything looks a lot like a kind of PHB 2. :smallyuk:

But they could errata the purple dragon knight to make the abilities a bit more/better.

[EggKookoo]

It's been 6 years and we still don't have a PHB 2 or Monster Manual 2.

I think of this as a sign of success.

I would much rather they spend their time producing adventuring content over more player options. But I exclusively DM these days, so I'm always looking for something to adapt or cannibalize or reuse for my own campaign.

[thereaper]

And Volo's Guide to Monsters is MM 2.

But there really is no excuse for the Artificer to be out before the Psion.

[Warwick]

There is already an abundant amount of choice for class and sub class. MC allows some more customization.


Is there? If you go by nominal choices, there is a respectable list of choices, but once you factor in homogeneity it looks a lot less impressive. On top of that, customization is basically nil unless you multiclass.


And FWIW, Xanathar's Guide to Everything looks a lot like a kind of PHB 2. :smallyuk:

Less than half it's page count is dedicated to player options.

[HappyDaze]

Less than half it's page count is dedicated to player options.

I'd argue that the spells are player options too. That puts it at more than half.

[Whit]

I watch video on the classes sub classes feats Spells on how they could be better some are good some are bad. Examples from esper and dungeon dudes. And I do agree with some of these posts. I would like to see a revised 5e to fix these issues.

I would like a better defined perception vs investigation. Perception has become the default everything.

[Ignimortis]

There is already an abundant amount of choice for class and sub class. MC allows some more customization.

Sure, if you consider everyone willing to play everything. But for people who aren't keen on some classes, and find some of the others too complex or too simple to engage with, there isn't much content unless they're alright with playing the same mechanical chassis again. Personally, I don't like any of the full casters besides Sorcerer thematically or mechanically, and I also don't like Fighter and Rogue mechanically. What's that leave me with? Not much, I can tell you that, and I've played everything on that remaining list except for Paladin.

[Ortho]

Less than half it's page count is dedicated to player options.

Not sure where you're getting that number from. The only bits of Xanathar's that players can't use is the introduction, Chapter 2, and Appendix A: Shared Campaigns. So 74 pages out of 192 aren't usable, but running the numbers that's still 61% of Xanathar's dedicated to player options.
And for what it's worth, only 75% of the PHB is player options. Page percentage isn't a very good metric to judge things by.

[Warwick]

Not sure where you're getting that number from. The only bits of Xanathar's that players can't use is the introduction, Chapter 2, and Appendix A: Shared Campaigns. So 74 pages out of 192 aren't usable, but running the numbers that's still 61% of Xanathar's dedicated to player options.


There are ~70 pages of subclasses and feats and ~20 pages of spells in an almost 200 page book. Chapter 2 is half the major content of the book, and then they decided to pad out the page count with lists of names you could have lifted off Wikipedia.


And for what it's worth, only 75% of the PHB is player options. Page percentage isn't a very good metric to judge things by.

The PHB also contains the core game rules. XGtE is no so burdened. It's not inherently a problem that XGtE is half oriented towards GMs (though I have some cynical suspicions about that), but it's definitely not a PHB II-type supplement. I'll judge on things beyond page count, like "is it crap?", but when we talk about a player supplement I expect it to be expanded player options.


Sure, if you consider everyone willing to play everything. But for people who aren't keen on some classes, and find some of the others too complex or too simple to engage with, there isn't much content unless they're alright with playing the same mechanical chassis again. Personally, I don't like any of the full casters besides Sorcerer thematically or mechanically, and I also don't like Fighter and Rogue mechanically. What's that leave me with? Not much, I can tell you that, and I've played everything on that remaining list except for Paladin.

I fully concur with the sentiment. Part of the issue is not only might you find only certain classes appealing, but consequential build variety is pretty underwhelming. Class X + Subclass Y usually winds up playing much the same every time, in my experience.

[Skylivedk]

No it’s not. You knock them down they stand up on their turn. Half their movement? Ok. Odds are they’re not going anywhere anyway and want to hit you. Can it be used at times. Ya. But they’re situational. If you have a second party member on the same enemy and they get their turn before the enemy does, then they can get advantage. You could use your first attack to knock them prone to get advantage on your second! But that is useless because you still role 2 20s and forgo the opportunity to hit and crit twice. You can knock down the caster! But he will probably misty step or dimension door away. Can it be used in specific situations sure. But so can true strike. You want to create a character that works off of knocking enemies prone? Probably not very effective. Again if the other party members are ganging up on the same enemy then ok. But again that’s situational and there are other ways to get advantage.

It's one of a number of potential player tactics and it really shines in certain teams. It's been a stable of my better groups, especially combined with hazard spells (create bonfire, spiked growth, firewall, etc). Our previous (revised) beast master used it a lot with his wolf doing the proning. Currently it's a combination of our barb/moon (giant scorpion grapples on hit), XBe maneuvers and Eldritch Smite proning that makes grappling worth it. It's tons extra control.

Also: it can utterly crush flying opponents without hover speeds!




Ya that can be useful at times. But like you insinuated it’s not typically the best practice and situational again.
It's a team game. Good parties create advantageous situations.


If a PC has extra attack they go back to the 2 20s. If they use an ability to knock prone, it often requires a BA negating a third attack from PAM (I realize this is not alway the case like open hand can be done with flurry). The only problem the OA supposedly had was slowing down gameplay. I know others don’t feel the same but that was the alleged reasoning for getting rid of OA on a list of things like casting in melee. Was it ever used on players. Yes. Fighting wolves at low levels could be intense. They could attack and get an auto trip attempt. Did it kill off PCs. Not really. I can’t think of a time it did in any of our games. Did players use it at strategy? Yes, if they had the strength or build to use it. Did it ever ruin encounters for DMs? As one, I can say I never had a player ruin my encounter do to knocking enemies prone. BBEG have minions and intelligent enemies know that’s a tactic and have contingency plans if needed. Sometimes those plans are no more complicated than “we still outnumber you”. I think it promotes creativity but you may disagree. I certainly don’t think it breaks anything, to have something negative anyway. I would say the same for casting in melee as well.
An alleged possibility is you can get up with half movement but enemies get adv on melee attacks till end of your next turn unless you use a defense action to stand up. Just a thought. Again I realize you disagree but I would like to see something.
I honestly see no need to buff grappling, except maybe give ways for martials to improve their range across sizes.


People on these forums really underestimate how many features a new player has to remember even as a champion fighter.

It's easy for those who catch on quick but a first-timer can have difficulty knowing whether the damage roll adds proficiency or not. Or if they need to meet or exceed a dice roll. Or if their modifier goes up by one when they increase their score by one. Or the difference between their longbow and shortbow. Or whether they're allowed to improvise. Or what their hit dice do. Or how much their equipment weighs. Or the difference between a short rest or a long rest. Or what a "passive Perception" is. Or why their spellcasting ability is prepared when another is based on known. Or what a cantrip is. Or how much exp they have. Or what their alignment mean. Or how to use inspiration. Or what their armor class is. Or how to make a saving throw. Or what a reaction is. Or how readying an action works. Or how stealth works. Or how cover works. Or how resistances work. Or how to calculate their spell DC. Or when to use action surge. Or what action surge actually does. Or what their race features are. Or how jumping works. Or how difficult terrain works. Or how to disarm traps. Or how to dodge. Or what a grapple is. Or how to sunder. Or whether they can do "called shots." Or if they can use their bonus action thing as an action. Or falling prone. Or crawling. Or using a map. Or knowing their enemies. Or using their skills. Or owning tools. Or crafting. Or when they can take long rests. Or what a feat is. Or what a critical hit does. Or how nat20's work. Or how eating works. Or how torches work. Etc...

For anyone that's never played a game with numbers like a videogame, these questions are huge hurdles that they'll need to figure out. Even a veteran PC gamer might need to take 10+ sessions to understand more than half of these concerns.

And people want more complexity, but complexity for the sake of complexity with no "in" for new players can be a form of gatekeeping and elitism. Especially when you realize that there's a chance these options won't be perfectly balanced and if they don't pick the "optimal" uses, they'll be worse than those with system mastery.

The 5e spell list is very balanced and even they have bad spells. Some claim that choosing these bad spells completely ruin a character and a newbie might not know it. So isn't it better to have some anchor so a complete newbie can just focus on playing and knowing the rules rather than having to completely understand action economy before character creation? That's what champion is. If they think they're ready for complexity, they can multiclass or retire the character for a more complex one. They can even retcon them into a battlemaster if they wish.

What do you mean the spells are very balanced? That's not even close to true, neither on a list by list or level by level basis. You have proper trap options on quite a few of both.

As for champion. I'm fine with simple. I just wish it was better. For now, I'd give brute or blend pdk with Champion to a new player. Or just trust them to learn because they want to.


I'll not mention my usual stuff and instead mention something that rarely does get mentioned but has. A better table of contents index. When I look something up I want the page it's on. I DO NOT want to be told to look for something else in the table of contents to then get the page both things are mentioned. I don't care if they're related or part of the same rule. I want to know specifically the page number of the thing I explicitly looked in the table of contents to find.
Agreed!! I remember heading pathfinder 2e in my hand. The indexing felt divine after having played so much 5e where it is both archaic and inefficient. I hate the "look under combat options" references. Just put a page number there rather than make me flip 2-3 around in the book.

[Spacehamster]

Haha, it does get a bit repetitive, and doesn't make a ton of sense when you have the sorcerer helping the cleric make a perception check, or the barbarian helping the wizard with a history check. Some of these things just shouldn't work.

We homebrewed it to that you can’t help with a skill you are not proficient in, then it makes a bit more sense.

[HPisBS]

... Part of the issue is not only might you find only certain classes appealing, but consequential build variety is pretty underwhelming. Class X + Subclass Y usually winds up playing much the same every time, in my experience.

If they had a distinction between major and minor feats, and then gave everyone a minor feat for free at level 1, that could go a long way towards mitigating that.

Alternatively, allow the option to trade 2 stat points at character creation to start with a feat, instead. If that would be imbalancing, then maybe lower the max stat to 14 (before race).

[HappyDaze]

If they had a distinction between major and minor feats, and then gave everyone a minor feat for free at level 1, that could go a long way towards mitigating that.

Alternatively, allow the option to trade 2 stat points at character creation to start with a feat, instead. If that would be imbalancing, then maybe lower the max stat to 14 (before race).

Just put a character level prerequisite on all feats (even if that level is 1).

[HPisBS]

That could work, too. But would lvl 1 include or preclude the feat at chargen?

[HappyDaze]

That could work, too. But would lvl 1 include or preclude the feat at chargen?

If you're granting feats at Level 1, then those should be limited to feats that list "Level 1" as a prerequisite.

[Skylivedk]

If they had a distinction between major and minor feats, and then gave everyone a minor feat for free at level 1, that could go a long way towards mitigating that.

Alternatively, allow the option to trade 2 stat points at character creation to start with a feat, instead. If that would be imbalancing, then maybe lower the max stat to 14 (before race).

I've done exactly this. Basically I said: you can make something akin to Actor (without the charisma bump) matching your character. Next step is to split combat feats from out of combat feats and give them separate levels.

[kbob]

This is less what 5e itself could do better and more what the writers could do better:

The amount of adventure books we get yearly is ridiculous, given, from my personal perception, it takes nearly a year if not more to finish even one in most cases. That said, the only books we've gotten that add more (universal, not campaign specific) subclasses, races, spells etc. is Xanathar's guide, Volo's guide, Mordenkainen's tome, and to a lesser degree Elemental Evil Player's companion and Sword Coast. The writers should really direct more focus into building expanded options for players rather than pumping out so many adventures. It's been 6 years and we still don't have a PHB 2 or Monster Manual 2.

I completely agree! I know 5e was promised to slow down on the splat books that previous editions suffered from, but I think they went too far the other direction (like a much of 5e).

Somewhat related to this, I know others expressed the spell lists are too bloated (and I understand your viewpoint), but I personally like more options. I would like to see more spells that have new effects in the game. Also, I would like to see more feats. I know it is an "option" but most people use it. I personally never found anyone, in person, that doesn't. I actually wish they were every 3 levels like before, but I'm probably a minority in that.

[Fryy]

Oh yes. We all found it weird that our Druid could not ignite a pile of dried kindling with produce flame and in another weird instance, discovered that create bonfire sheds no light.

I wish magic in 5e was more explicitly 'physic-ey'... like if they published new content describing the "physics of magic"... for example... "Yes, magical fire does illuminate 'this much' area while active" or "a Fireball cast outside can be heard 'this' far away"... I think it would lead to more immersion and more creative game play.

[Eldariel]

+ a lot for this one.

And in addition:
- allowing a few concepts that are not or only badly possible in 5e (shapechanger without spellcasting, grappler / judo / jitsu martial artist, thrown weapon user, mounted warrior)
- allowing a few new systems (adapted for 5e of course): I would like them to give binder, truenamer, martial adepts or psionics a good try (the latter in an official book not just UA).
- allowing more character (class/subclass) options, but also new feats, fighting styles, invocations, 4e-monk options, metamagic choices;
- more pure martial options (including a complicated one);
- a bit more guidance on skill DC's, even if only tucked away in DMG, or a few optional systems that DM's can choose from / draw inspiration from.

Speaking of, something this edition is horrid about are various magical specialists. Want to specialise in fire spells? You get very little mechanically for it. Want to specialise in thunder spells? Yeah, good luck. And that's the smallest issue: what about a bear-themed Druid for example? There are absolutely no benefits to and no support for only summoning/turning into a specific animal or favouring a certain demon class or focusing on one specific spell or such. The game simply lacks the mechanics to support any kind of magical specialisation and indeed, since much of the power of those classes and spells is in their versatility, you're mechanically hurting yourself if you do focus on a single thing.

[HappyDaze]

I wish magic in 5e was more explicitly 'physic-ey'... like if they published new content describing the "physics of magic"... for example... "Yes, magical fire does illuminate 'this much' area while active" or "a Fireball cast outside can be heard 'this' far away"... I think it would lead to more immersion and more creative game play.

General guidelines would be great, and not just for magic either. While they tell you a thunderous boom (for some spell or another) can be heard at 100' they don't tell you that the boom carries far less than firing a handgun (and probably less than two armored & shielded dudes swinging swords at each other in deadly combat) does. Even normal speaking voice is typically audible to 20 meters (> 65 feet) while a typical shout carries to 100 meters (> 325 feet) IRL, so that "thunderous sound" isn't really so thunderous after all.

[Corsair14]

Weapon proficiencies. Not just simple or martial weapons.
2nd most important, make regular proficiencies more relevant.

[EggKookoo]

Somewhat related to this, I know others expressed the spell lists are too bloated (and I understand your viewpoint), but I personally like more options. I would like to see more spells that have new effects in the game. Also, I would like to see more feats. I know it is an "option" but most people use it. I personally never found anyone, in person, that doesn't. I actually wish they were every 3 levels like before, but I'm probably a minority in that.

My complaint about spells isn't that there are too many options. When I advocate for streamlining, what I really mean is I want more meaningful choices. I watch my players go through their available spells, and every single player has period of confusion about it. It's very unclear what the value of each spell is compared to another, except for a few obvious choices. Add to that the burden of managing spell slot/levels, and how almost every class or subclass has some access to spellcasting, it starts to look strange. D&D 5e was ostensibly a move toward simplification (and I think it was overall), but they just left spells the hot mess they always were.

Sure, yes, they moved from "spells per day" to "slots per day" and that is a big step forward. I know 2e players who avoided spellcasters like the plague, who are much happier with the new approach. But where I really see friction is in the spell choices themselves. There are too many redundant and situational spells, and it feels disjointed from the rest of the mechanics. I would have loved to have seen them unify some thematic spells so that rather than just adding damage dice as you use higher-level slots, you got additional effects. Like, some kind of "produce flame" spell that works like fire bolt at 1st level, but becomes more like burning hands, fireball, and maybe even fire shield as you cast it through higher level slots (although you may retain the ability to still cast it in its 1st level form if you choose). You basically unlock more potent/flexible versions of the spell as you get more powerful. Regrouping and reorganizing spells like this would allow them to reduce redundancy and more clearly see any gaps or missing opportunities. And I think it would be more easily digested by the players.

[Zertryx]

Make INT More useful so it isn't a Dump stat for everyone other than Wizards / Artificer

Why doesn't INT give more languages / Skills? or even speed up certain activity's outside of combat, INT is also a very low save which isnt used for very much.

Also I'm not a big fan with how they handled Sub Classes / Classes in general, I wish there was more choice to how you picked your Class features. (or offered a bit more Features at different levels) because right now some sub classes just feel REAL useless with the current system because there just isnt much to select from once you pick your subclass other than spells / Feats.

The only reason 5E honestly feels really customizable is because of how Simple multi classing was done in this game

And that brings me to my last point ... CAP STONES should be way better for how much you need to invest, MOST Classes are So front Loaded which is another reason Multiclassing is basically the preferred way to build a character.

[opaopajr]

Greater GM conversation on how to elaborate the fictional world with dynamics, and why. e.g. Explain what encouter distance rolls, reaction rolls, and morale can add to the game, making explore & social pillars as viable and engaging to the encounter experience. Basically bring back all those secondary and tertiary sub-systems (domain, hirelings & henchmen, vehicles, interactables, mundane treasure & commerce ideas, etc.) as examples on how to enrich the environment, making the setting stand out more -- and or discussions on how to turn off some PC widgets to help them integrate more into a homebrew's setting. :smallsmile:

What I don't want: more complexity & new batches of widgets (spells, archetypes, features, feats, etc.). There are plenty of other RPGs that fight for that ever narrowing space. D&D is the standard bearer of TTRPG entry, so it kinda has to be mass appeal vanilla approachable and a bit didactic (teacher-like).

So I want more conversations on how to address other aspects of play, make them seem fun, and making imagination work for you and your players.

[Telok]

Way back when there was talk of 5e being modular. I wish they'd followed through on that. Pirate campaign, use the sea & ships module. Political campaign, use the castles & courts module. Hex crawling, use the wilderness and geography module. I feel like I've been standing around holding a sign saying "Will pay money for good rpg rules" for the last decade and D&D just keeps going past with combat based board games.

[ForeverFlame]

The unbalanced martial vs. caster system. I just want to play a decent martial, darn it! This is why I play Druid and Cleric.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Balance of Subclasses, Abilities, and Spells.
The best example of Subclass and Spell imbalance I can think of is the Sorcerer if you just own the PHB. Pretty much the only way of getting a mechanically functional character is to pick Dragon, then you are pretty much hooked into fire. As others have said, from there on characters tend to look a bit like clones. Additional books, feats, and multiclassing open up other avenues, but these are all optional.

[NoxMiasma]

I wish 5e had more "magic" outside the spell/spellcasting system.

Monks are an example of what I'm talking about: they can do lots of supernatural stuff without ever making you look up the nitty-gritty rules about spell slots, casting time, material components, and so on, much less forcing you to dip into the dreaded Spells chapter. (And even monks still force you to look up spellcasting rules for SOME of their class abilities.)

There's absolutely no mechanical reason that the game doesn't include a class like the 3.5e warlock that can do a bunch of cool magical stuff (shoot fire, fly around, etc) without "Casting Spells." It's a real missed opportunity that they didn't include more options to let you play a range of characters even if you're the type of person who doesn't have the time or inclination to read and keep track of the huge, complex spell system.

I absolutely agree with this! If I want to play a knight of Arthurian Legend - an obvious character concept for a high-level fighter - I have to bolt half a wizard onto the Fighter chassis. Why? Monks are allowed to perform feats of superhuman skill and strength, but a fighter who wants to leap 6 leagues, or hold their breath for a day (perfectly reasonable things for an Arthurian hero) has to be a wizard, and I personally find it frustrating.

[HPisBS]

... Monks are allowed to perform feats of superhuman skill and strength, but a fighter who wants to leap 6 leagues, or hold their breath for a day (perfectly reasonable things for an Arthurian hero) has to be a wizard, and I personally find it frustrating.

I don't remember any stories where Arthur's knights did that kind of stuff lol. But, then again, it's been over a decade since I read The Once and Future King, so maybe my memory's just failing me.

However, I am sure that 5e Monks don't really get any "feats of superhuman strength" - unless maybe you want to count running up waterfalls as a feat of strength. It's barbarians who are the strongmen.

But yeah. I will concur that martials in general need some more love. By tier 4, they ought to be obviously superhuman.

[OldTrees1]

I don't remember any stories where Arthur's knights did that kind of stuff lol. But, then again, it's been over a decade since I read The Once and Future King, so maybe my memory's just failing me.

However, I am sure that 5e Monks don't really get any "feats of superhuman strength" - unless maybe you want to count running up waterfalls as a feat of strength. It's barbarians who are the strongmen.

But yeah. I will concur that martials in general need some more love. By tier 4, they ought to be obviously superhuman.

Jumping 6 leagues sounds like a Celtic myth rather than the standard Arthurian fare.
Holding one's breath for multiple days is the famous Beowulf.

[Democratus]

Balance of Subclasses, Abilities, and Spells.
The best example of Subclass and Spell imbalance I can think of is the Sorcerer if you just own the PHB. Pretty much the only way of getting a mechanically functional character is to pick Dragon, then you are pretty much hooked into fire.

It's this kind of hyperbole that hurts meaningful discussion. More than half the sorcerers at my 5e tables have been Wild Magic sorcerers and they never failed to be "mechanically functional".

Non-Optimized != Non-Functional

[Asisreo1]

It's this kind of hyperbole that hurts meaningful discussion. More than half the sorcerers at my 5e tables have been Wild Magic sorcerers and they never failed to be "mechanically functional".

Non-Optimized != Non-Functional
I agree. I've played almost every single subclass of almost every single class and there's only a few times I've ever felt mechanically nonfunctional. That was my Cleric (because I insisted on Inflict Wounds as a light cleric) and my Open Palm Monk (because I'd forget some important features like forcing saves with my flurry or self-healing). Coincidently, those were my first 2 characters in the game while I didn't have good system mastery. After them, I've played 3 different colored Sorcs, A frenzy Barb, A BM Ranger, an assassin rogue, a 4-elemonk, a wildmagic sorcerer, a feylock, a necrowizard, a desert land druid, and a champion fighter. At no point have I disliked how my character played nor did any of my players feel hindered.

Meanwhile, in my current campaign, the wizard player causes facepalms whenever they go into battle because they chose horrible spell options like acid splash or wasting the party's gold on the familiar he constantly gets killed.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree. I've played almost every single subclass of almost every single class and there's only a few times I've ever felt mechanically nonfunctional. That was my Cleric (because I insisted on Inflict Wounds as a light cleric) and my Open Palm Monk (because I'd forget some important features like forcing saves with my flurry or self-healing). Coincidently, those were my first 2 characters in the game while I didn't have good system mastery. After them, I've played 3 different colored Sorcs, A frenzy Barb, A BM Ranger, an assassin rogue, a 4-elemonk, a wildmagic sorcerer, a feylock, a necrowizard, a desert land druid, and a champion fighter. At no point have I disliked how my character played nor did any of my players feel hindered.

Meanwhile, in my current campaign, the wizard player causes facepalms whenever they go into battle because they chose horrible spell options like acid splash or wasting the party's gold on the familiar he constantly gets killed.

OK, I'll agree that 'mechanically nonfunctional' is perhaps an overreach, but I think there is quite a bit of space between nonfunctional and non-optimized. And I think many of the subclasses, feats, and spells in the PH fit into that grey area. Maybe you are ok with the wildmagic that could potentially get party members killed at a key moment or a frenzy Barb that can't use it's main feature even once without suffering exhaustion penalties (while the bear totem Barb takes 1/2 damage to basically everything for most encounters). My group isn't ok with that level of imbalance. Thankfully, books like XGE provide more viable options. (Maybe viable is the word I am looking for that fits in the space between functional and optimized.)

[Nifft]

Hmm.

It could be justified to say that the Wild Magic Sorcerer does have some missing mechanics -- like any sort of guidance about when you should expect a Tide of Chaos to give you back a class feature -- but it's not dysfunctional, it's just got some missing parts which the DM is expected to fill in.

It's no worse than the Stealth subsystem, which isn't a great place to be, but it's not dysfunctional.

[Lucas Yew]

- Actual example skill DCs for the most common and/or referenced situations per skill (at least the ones done versus environmental/situational DCs, not active oppositions).

- Monster Proficiency scaling based on HD instead of CR (their resultant CR won't change in the majority of cases anyway, plus this way it's much easier to stat up a homebrew critter).

- Frequent updates (and/or additions) to the SRD5E (why are guns and epic boons still stuck on the DMG, especially guns, the ultimate weapon of democracy?!).

- Grant martial classes more ribbons to interact meaningfully with the world (Know Your Enemy (battlemaster) and Timeless Body (monk) are good reference points).

- Spontaneous casters in general must know more spells than how many a prep caster has prepared on the same level (gosh, the Sorcerer's pathetic known list, around a whopping half of a Bard, is just so wrong).

[ezekielraiden]

1. Tactical combat.
2. Full-caster/not-full-caster balance.
3. Having a Warlord.

[HPisBS]

...
- Spontaneous casters in general must know more spells than how many a prep caster has prepared on the same level (gosh, the Sorcerer's pathetic known list, around a whopping half of a Bard, is just so wrong).

Giving sorcerers some thematic bonus spells (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608257-Thematic-Sorcerer-Subclass-Spells) - kinda like a domain spell list - would go a long ways. WotC keep on flirting with the idea in UA (Storm, Favored Soul, etc), but then they just keep bailing on it.

Why?!?

[Luccan]

- Spontaneous casters in general must know more spells than how many a prep caster has prepared on the same level (gosh, the Sorcerer's pathetic known list, around a whopping half of a Bard, is just so wrong).

Interestingly (and also annoyingly, IMO), if you count their cantrips the gap is a bit smaller (Bard has 4 more rather than 7). Which leads me to believe the reason the Sorcerer has two more cantrips than everyone else is to make up for the loss on spells known, even though it doesn't in any way do that.

I wish 5e had a better balance between damage types, particularly for spell selection. While it's generally a poor choice, there are 4 spells that specifically deal Poison damage in all of 5e, out of total 10 that can. Fire has 24 fire-only damage spells alone and can further be selected by a greater number of "choose your damage" spells.

It could also stand to actually use resistances/immunities/weaknesses in a way that didn't mostly amount to making certain damages less useful or only harming martials, but otherwise generally not using the mechanic at all

[ezekielraiden]

Giving sorcerers some thematic bonus spells (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608257-Thematic-Sorcerer-Subclass-Spells) - kinda like a domain spell list - would go a long ways. WotC keep on flirting with the idea in UA (Storm, Favored Soul, etc), but then they just keep bailing on it.

Why?!?

Because the PHB subclasses don't have it, and now neither do the ones they published after. This is, in fact, my best evidence that they are unwilling (or perhaps afraid) to release real, serious errata even where they know the game has a problem. Well that and the Ranger, since they've openly admitted it's flawed but haven't replaced it.

[Lucas Yew]

Because the PHB subclasses don't have it, and now neither do the ones they published after. This is, in fact, my best evidence that they are unwilling (or perhaps afraid) to release real, serious errata even where they know the game has a problem. Well that and the Ranger, since they've openly admitted it's flawed but haven't replaced it.

Another 4E-phobia, then (in that 4E frequently had rules shaking errata). What a shame, the bloodline spells acting like Cleric domain spells would have greatly alleviated the spell shortage issue (although it's quite obvious that all those Sorc guides will inevitably re-rank bloodlines based on their 10 bonus spells).

[Optimator]

If I were introducing a bunch of new players to D&D who haven't played a tabletop RPG before, or complex board games, or stat-heavy VG RPGs, I think 5th is great. It's simplicity is one of its strengths and most of the fun in a session should come from the group aspect and the story-telling.

I do, however, greatly prefer 3.5 (or 3.P, as my friends and I usually played). I love how much more customizable everything was. It's more complex, of course, but that's why we liked it. I loved being able to drop a few skill points here and there to represent dabbling or a backstory element without having a binary proficient/not-proficient choice (and using more resources in the process). I loved being able to spend a feat or two on flavor and not feel like I feel like, because of this, my character is incompetent.

I feel like in 5th it's too hard to make some character ideas viable. Want to play an educated historian Fighter in 5th? Too bad; your stats are too low and you can't spare a proficiency. (This is just an example-- don't @ me about Eldritch Knights or something). Want to represent a college-level understanding of a subject/skill but not mastery or fantastic mastery? Sorry, either you're fully trained or you're not. Want to be the best at some skill? Hopefully there is a mediocre feat that is related to it. Even then, the character a few levels below you without the specialization is nearly as good as you.

I can't stand the bounded nature of skill attempts. Devote all your resources and medium-hard checks are still failed. An untrained character with the wrong stats still has a chance to succeed. Drives me nuts. It makes sense to have the bounding with attack bonuses and AC for balance reasons but it all severely damages my sense of verisimilitude. I can't even begin to describe how much I preferred 3.5/PF's skill system. I mean, I guess I already have...

I also can't stand how, since there are fewer boosts to stats and the like from classes and items, the race one chooses for a character is borderline paramount. In 3rd the race chosen was almost entirely RP since classes, feats, and items can make up for any shortcomings. Want to be an Orc Wizard? Go for it! In 5th a suboptimal race is hamstringing in a way that it never was before, even in 2nd Edition (don't @ me about max levels). I almost always want to choose my race for fluff reasons, despite being a fairly consistent optimizer, but in 5th I legit feel punished for choosing a flavorful race over an ideal race. FeelsBadMan

Don't get me wrong, I like 5th. I just feel like these things take away from a bit of the soul of the game.

[Optimator]

It wasn't until I became a DM and my players started becoming confused every time they had to level up that I realized that 5e's classes have too many class features. For the sorts of people who frequent forums like these, it's very easy because we know it all already, but for new players it's a lot to remember. They can't even remember all their normal features, let alone the consumable magic items I give them. Each level makes the issue worse, and none of them are even playing the really complex ones like cleric or wizard.

This is a good point.

[Pex]

Something else while purposely not mentioning my usual pet peeves.

All classes being able to benefit from short rest and long rest in getting back useful class features. What avoids the sameness of 4E is how the various class features work differently, but the basic resource management is the fun part.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Something else while purposely not mentioning my usual pet peeves.

All classes being able to benefit from short rest and long rest in getting back useful class features. What avoids the sameness of 4E is how the various class features work differently, but the basic resource management is the fun part.

100% agreed. It's nearly impossible to complete an adventuring day with the 6-8 meaningful (resource using) encounters at high level in a reasonable length of time. Also unrealistic if your group is anywhere but in a dungeon. The DM wouldn't be constantly trying to artificially add things just to balance short rest characters.

I'll add one more:
How difficult is it to make a decent character sheet? That poky little box in the middle of the page for attacks should take at least 1/4 of the front page and include range, area of effect, save (if any), special effects, etc, so that players aren't constantly having to reference elsewhere. Also, have a box for actions, bonus actions, and reactions.