New take

[Elves]

New take
5e should remove skills, saving throws, attack rolls, and proficiency bonuses.
Everything should just be an ability check.
And increases from leveling should be solely via ASIs, not a “proficiency bonus."
But abilities should max out at +/-10 rather than 5, and every point is +/-1, rather than every 2 points.

This would make the game much easier to learn without sacrificing any meaningful complexity.

The saving throws and skills a class is proficient in are usually the ones based on the abilities it wants a high score in anyway, so giving the class an extra bonus to those skills and saves is redundant.

If you want to be good at an unconventional skill for your archetype, or want to be a “trained professional” in a certain skill, that can be mediated through a background or a feat.

I genuinely believe this would make the game easier to understand to new players, and ultimately, make it sell more. If the team wants to make more money, they should do something like this.

[Damon_Tor]

New take
5e should remove skills, saving throws, attack rolls, and proficiency bonuses.
Everything should just be an ability check.
And increases from leveling should be solely via ASIs, not a “proficiency bonus."
But abilities should max out at +/-10 rather than 5, and every point is +/-1, rather than every 2 points.

This would make the game much easier to learn without sacrificing any meaningful complexity.

The saving throws and skills a class is proficient in are usually the ones based on the abilities it wants a high score in anyway, so giving the class an extra bonus to those skills and saves is redundant.

If you want to be good at an unconventional skill for your archetype, or want to be a “trained professional” in a certain skill, that can be mediated through a background or a feat.

I genuinely believe this would make the game easier to understand to new players, and ultimately, make it sell more. If the team wants to make more money, they should do something like this.

There are no attributes.
Proficiency is +6 at level 1 and goes up by 1 at levels 4,8,12,16, and 20.
Pick one of the following things: Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, Spellcasting. You have your full proficiency bonus with that.
Pick one of the other things from that above list. You are okay at that. That means you have half your proficiency bonus.
Pick one save type: you are proficient with it.
Pick one other: you are okay with it.
Pick 4 skills. You are proficient in them.
Pick 6 other skills. You are okay at them.

There you go, that's your simple system.

[HidesHisEyes]

You are a brave soul, friend.

No I don’t think so. I think the complexity added by the proficiency bonus is pretty mild and well worth it for the customisation and nuance it adds to characters.

[Elves]

You are a brave soul, friend.

No I don’t think so. I think the complexity added by the proficiency bonus is pretty mild and well worth it for the customisation and nuance it adds to characters.
It's multiple birds with one stone. When you have to tell people about not just AC and hit points but attack bonuses, save bonuses, and skill bonuses, those are a lot of separate statistics to remember. Describing attacks, saves, and skills as separate statistics makes the game seem complicated.

This way you only have to remember one thing: d20+the relevant ability score.

You could keep proficiency bonuses under this system if you'd like, but there's not much reason to.

[JackPhoenix]

It's multiple birds with one stone. When you have to tell people about not just AC and hit points but attack bonuses, save bonuses, and skill bonuses, those are a lot of separate statistics to remember. Describing attacks, saves, and skills as separate statistics makes the game seem complicated.

This way you only have to remember one thing: d20+the relevant ability score.

You could keep proficiency bonuses under this system if you'd like, but there's not much reason to.

There's a pretty good reason: To make different people good at different things, instead of everyone being the same cardboard copy of each other just because they've invested into the same stat, which there are only 6 of.

[Sigreid]

This reminds me of the jokes in MMO forums about everyone just having /poke for combat. :smalltongue:

[Elves]

There's a pretty good reason: To make different people good at different things, instead of everyone being the same cardboard copy of each other just because they've invested into the same stat, which there are only 6 of.
Being good at different things is represented by your abilities. A fighter with Int 12/Wis 8 is good at different things than a fighter with Int 8/Wis 12.

Also, background choice can do what skill choice does now. A fighter with the circus acrobat background and a fighter with the woodsman background are as if not more differentiated than a fighter who chooses Acrobatics and Animal Handling and a fighter who chooses Survival and Perception. And it's a more colorful distinction that's easier for a new player to understand.


From a game design PoV, the real differences should be between the different class features, spells, powers, feats, etc. that characters choose and that create different tactical choices. The basic statistics are just the chassis those are built upon.

[JackPhoenix]

Being good at different things is represented by your abilities. A fighter with Int 12/Wis 8 is good at different things than a fighter with Int 8/Wis 12.

Also, background choice can do what skill choice does now. A fighter with the circus acrobat background and a fighter with the woodsman background are as if not more differentiated than a fighter who chooses Acrobatics and Animal Handling and a fighter who chooses Survival and Perception. And it's a more colorful distinction that's easier for a new player to understand.

From a game design PoV, the real differences should be between the different class features, spells, powers, feats, etc. that characters choose and that create different tactical choices. The basic statistics are just the chassis those are built upon.

And how exactly are they different if both the circus acrobat fighter and woodsman fighter have the same ability scores? There are no different skills to be proficient in, and their bonuses to any relevant checks are the same.

[Sigreid]

Being good at different things is represented by your abilities. A fighter with Int 12/Wis 8 is good at different things than a fighter with Int 8/Wis 12.

Also, background choice can do what skill choice does now. A fighter with the circus acrobat background and a fighter with the woodsman background are as if not more differentiated than a fighter who chooses Acrobatics and Animal Handling and a fighter who chooses Survival and Perception. And it's a more colorful distinction that's easier for a new player to understand.


From a game design PoV, the real differences should be between the different class features, spells, powers, feats, etc. that characters choose and that create different tactical choices. The basic statistics are just the chassis those are built upon.

That's certainly a design POV, but definitely not the only one. I much prefer the idea that the attributes represent broad ranges of talent and experience and the proficiency picks represent areas of particular focus. If you really think about it, you'd likely be surprised at the number of wildly different things you can do with decent competence.

[JonBeowulf]

5e is... too complicated? There are people who have difficulty grasping the basics?

Old man going on a "back in my day" rant, but there's no way these folks would have survived earlier editions. This one had the right balance back when it was released.

I actually prefer 2e or BECMI (if I feel like having characters die every few minutes).

[Brookshw]

Kinda reminds me of Tri-Stat or one of the many other systems where you're basically just rolling your attribute. Do-able, though unlikely.

[Jerrykhor]

Another hot take contender!

I don't think its any more complicated that certain sports rules, take football for example. People new to the sport will have to learn the handball rules, offside rules, throw-in rules, penalty rules, fouling rules, substitute rules... it sounds overwhelming, right? Well duh, everything is overwhelming when you are new to it.

I think 5e rules are already simple enough, none of them are unnecessarily complicated. Some of them could be worded better, or have more consistency in the wording, but overall its fine.

[Elves]

I think 5e rules are already simple enough, none of them are unnecessarily complicated.
I mean, I'm a 3.5head...for my taste 5e is already too simplified. But I'm talking about what would appeal to the most people, based on my experience with new players. A lot of people are open to fictional storytelling and social games but aren't interested in a statistical wargame. To get the best-selling product, you basically want to get as close as possible to selling people's imaginations back to them.

The ironic thing is that the D&D team's current product vision is one that doesn't need a product.
They want to just stamp their logo on the act of playing make-believe and charge 5 bucks to enter.

While I'm critical of that, this thread isn't sarcastic.

For example, I think it's true that having a class give bonuses to something a member of that class already wants a high ability score in is redundant design.

[Ulsan Krow]

Unbelievably spicy take

[Kane0]

Post #1: No proficiency, just stats
Post #2: No stats, just proficiency

Anyways, I like having both. Part of your capabilities come from training and experience, and some from natural talent. One gives you a way to express the specific strengths and weaknesses of your character while the other ensures that things you should be competent at as an adventurer and member of a team you are indeed competent at.

[Elves]

One gives you a way to express the specific strengths and weaknesses of your character while the other ensures that things you should be competent at as an adventurer and member of a team you are indeed competent at.
It's an interesting question as far as introducing new people.

Should you give them one knob and ask them to understand it in order to play well, or should you give them a big panel of knobs that they don't understand but don't need to understand to get an ok result?

I prefer the first. I don't think people are too dumb to understand things -- I think they are easily overwhelmed by too much new information.

One simple thing that's understood, rather than a lot of half-understood things, is also probably a better foundation for building knowledge about the game.

As far as attracting new players, it's basically a question of which is the bigger concern: someone being overwhelmed/confused/turned off by too many statistics and not even giving the game a chance, or someone creating a new character "badly" and being turned off from the game because they feel their character is weak or they made a bad choice.

It seems to me like the first is the more serious filter. First, because it happens first: you need to get people through that stage to get them to the game at all. Second, because once you get to the actual game, there are many ways that it can be fun even with a poorly-built character. But maybe playtesting would show that the second problem is more serious.

[Kane0]

Its really not that complicated. For virtually any roll you are asked to make (except damage rolls) you roll d20, add one of six stats and proficiency if it applies. What i will grant you is that the character sheets and such generally dont display this in an easy, convenient manner.

[Easy e]

D&D should reduce to 3 attributes using a 2D6
- Brains
- Brawn
- Social

There are no classes, and instead you get to choose:

Profession +2
Passion +1
Distraction -1
Fear - 2

If the DM says something falls under one of those categories, you take the bonus/minus on the 2d6 roll. All checks are attribute tests modified by the above, and DM Fiat Target Numbers.

The DM never rolls a dice, just sets a TN and the player rolls. Beat the TN is a success, tie the TN is a partial success, and miss the TN is a fail.

[Unoriginal]

It's multiple birds with one stone.

Birds I (and many others) prefers to be alive.

[animorte]

D&D should reduce to 3 attributes using a 2D6
- Brains
- Brawn
- Social

There are no classes, and instead you get to choose:

Profession +2
Passion +1
Distraction -1
Fear - 2


I would adjust, but yes to this.

Have you by any chance looked into Tails of Equestria? It basically has that exact attribute concept: Body, Mind, and Charm… simple system, great intro for kids (our daughter is getting about that age).

[Phhase]

If the team wants to make more money, they should do something like this.

I'm glad they have some vestigial sense of artistic vision, then. Further sacrificing identity for mass appeal is not wise.

What would be better is some kind of beginner's flowchart to guide new players though the means and methods of taking their turn, so they can refer to it if they have questions about procedure.

[Witty Username]

You should look up sharp swords and sinister spells (and or it's Sci fi equivalent Solar Blades and Cosmic Spells). Both use a version of this line of thinking and have very simple rulesets. If this line of thinking appeals to you it may be a good system to play/loot from.

[Selion]

New take
5e should remove skills, saving throws, attack rolls, and proficiency bonuses.
Everything should just be an ability check.
And increases from leveling should be solely via ASIs, not a “proficiency bonus."
But abilities should max out at +/-10 rather than 5, and every point is +/-1, rather than every 2 points.

This would make the game much easier to learn without sacrificing any meaningful complexity.

The saving throws and skills a class is proficient in are usually the ones based on the abilities it wants a high score in anyway, so giving the class an extra bonus to those skills and saves is redundant.

If you want to be good at an unconventional skill for your archetype, or want to be a “trained professional” in a certain skill, that can be mediated through a background or a feat.

I genuinely believe this would make the game easier to understand to new players, and ultimately, make it sell more. If the team wants to make more money, they should do something like this.

This actually reminds me of PF2, where any test, being it an attack, a spell or a skill check, has bonuses for Trained/Expert/Master for that action.
It's a neat idea, but it may be in contrast with bounded accuracy, which also is a good idea.
So... the devil is in details, as usual.

[Easy e]

I would adjust, but yes to this.

Have you by any chance looked into Tails of Equestria? It basically has that exact attribute concept: Body, Mind, and Charm… simple system, great intro for kids (our daughter is getting about that age).

I have not, but Those Dark Places uses a similar system and I have had good results with this simple system in other homebrew games.

I will see if I can look it up, as I feel RPGs are better when streamlined than when complicated. It allows you to focus on what makes the RPG experience, rather than the dice rolls.

[animorte]

I have not, but Those Dark Places uses a similar system and I have had good results with this simple system in other homebrew games.

I will see if I can look it up, as I feel RPGs are better when streamlined than when complicated. It allows you to focus on what makes the RPG experience, rather than the dice rolls.

I will have to take a good look at These Dark Places, if that’s the case!

I agree. It’s just the forumites that have enough extra time to argue in circles about each and every precise mechanic. Not for me.