Hoped-for changes to 5e (excluding racial stat mods)

[Zuras]

Outside of the changes to the changes to the racial stat modifiers (which have multiple discussion threads dedicated to them), what problems does 5e have that should be fixed in the next edition?

I am less than enthusiastic about One D&D myself, mostly because all the things that annoy me about 5e seem to be fixable either without a new edition, or only with one that is not backwards compatible, (or compatible only at the adventure path level).

For example, I’d love a new DMG with more polished skill rules guidelines, setting forth example DCs and giving more in depth guidance for failing forward, success at a cost, and levels of success. I’d like official optional rules (as in playtested ones) for a metacurrency, and more support for improvised skill actions in combat.

I’d also like the various class fixes from Tasha’s to be codified, with an official fully revised Monk and Ranger, plus all the minor fixes (like subclass specific additional sorcerer spells) back-ported to PHB classes.

All the other places where 5e feels off to me, from the inaccuracy of CR calculations to stat utility imbalances to the unbalanced effectiveness of charisma based classes when multi-classing, seem like they would require fixes that break compatibility with the existing 5e system.

I am especially concerned with the seeming push for greater standardization across all classes we’ve seen so far in the ODD materials. I can see a great benefit there in allowing templating class abilities and allowing character archetype mixing through a different mechanism than multiclassing, but that’s a really hard design problem that the original 5e team seemed to give up on, giving us a wide mix of totally prescriptive (Open Hand Monk) to completely build-a-bear (Warlock) with a bunch of classes in the middle. I’m rather concerned important appendages will get looped off so everything will fit properly in the box.

So what are your gripes with 5e, and do you think they can be solved with a version 5.5 or do they need a full version 6.0?

[sun_flotter]

I think one of the main issues is that, no matter what, not everyone is going to be happy about the new things added or changes made. When you're adapting one edition (whether it be 5e or any other edition), you're adapting it to your table and needs, which isn't something a big corporation will be able to do, so for my part, I'm sincerly not hoping for anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

So what are your gripes with 5e, and do you think they can be solved with a version 5.5 or do they need a full version 6.0? I am still not totally on board with how spell saves are tied to 6 ability scores and you only get two proficiencies with your class and some race/class bennies.

Yuan Ti magic resistance for the PC Yuan Ti is wrong. Need to dump that if they revisit the Yuan Ti as PC race. (Not a problem if you leave it in the MM).

Get rid of trance. We don't need it any more.

Get rid of that moon invocation that means no sleep. One of the really dumb ideas that made it through the editing process.

Re do Wild Magic Sorcerer. Concept great, execution bad.

Re do Four Elements Monk. Great idea, bad execution.

Scrub the bloat out of the over abundance of spells.

[Zuras]

I think one of the main issues is that, no matter what, not everyone is going to be happy about the new things added or changes made. When you're adapting one edition (whether it be 5e or any other edition), you're adapting it to your table and needs, which isn't something a big corporation will be able to do, so for my part, I'm sincerly not hoping for anything.

Granted, but less rigid systems are generally easier to adapt without running into issues. I’m hoping for either a system fully compatible with 5e or one that successfully implements the good ideas in 4e without losing the D&D feel. I just don’t want to see something that’s incompatible but not providing something compellingly new versus 5e.

[Psyren]

There are a lot of subclasses I'm looking forward to them redoing, like Wild Magic and 4 Elements. But after seeing the first pass at the Thief and Hunter... and heck, even Lore Bard and Life Cleric were fairly underwhelming albeit less so - I am considerably less enthused. They seem to be going overly conservative in their approach to subclass power in core rather than building on some of the more exciting subclass design we've seen recently like Fey Wanderer or Drakewarden. Still, I'm optimistic that the playtest process will beef things up.

The big change I'm looking out for will be Object Interactions getting further refinement. The Thief especially seems to hinge on this and they've promised changes here, but I'll need to see what. I think this is the biggest opportunity to differentiate 5e from PF2 where nearly everything costs an Action.

[OldTrees1]

So what are your gripes with 5e, and do you think they can be solved with a version 5.5 or do they need a full version 6.0?
1)
I want interesting and diverse playable species. However I don't see 5.5's backwards compatibility allowing it to handle things like Large Giants, Myconoids, Ghouls, Mimics, and Tiny Spiders. While 5E could expand away from "demihuman #31", there are not enough build points in a player species to allow for much of interest (compare 5E Dragonborn/Warforged vs 3E Dragonborn/Warforged for examples).

2)
I don't like how much your character creation choices are frontloaded. Choices should be frontloaded, but it would be good if there were more choices latter too. I don't want 1st-4th level to summarize a 20th level character. This change is possible in 5.5, but unlikely.

[Unoriginal]

However I don't see 5.5's backwards compatibility allowing it to handle things like Large Giants, Myconoids, Ghouls, Mimics, and Tiny Spiders.

I don't think they're actually going to do backward compatibility.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think they're actually going to do backward compatibility.

They'll do "backward compatibility" about as well as Apple does. Note, this is different from supporting prior versions. But the new stuff won't work with the old "OS" very well at all--if you want any of the new shiny stuff, you need to update your core ruleset to OneD&D. And if you want to use your old stuff...well...you'll have to accept lots of jank.

- Adventures--these will mostly work. But you'll have to translate a bunch of the mechanical details/monster stat blocks. Much less of a conversion than, say, 3e -> 5e or 2e -> 5e. But still an active conversion step.
- Classes/races--these will not work together very well at all. The balance breakpoints and what goes where is very different.
- spells--these may work similarly as individuals, but with enough changes to require a careful look.

And if they want to do anything more aggressive than they've shown, even those may not hold.

From a business perspective, I have a sneaking suspicion (not a guarantee, not even a "more likely than not") that they'll push to have much larger differences than they were going to before the whole OGL fiasco. Just so they can differentiate it enough to make putting out a new SRD (with a new license) more "obviously valuable" and "encourage" people to move to the new platform.

Being backward compatible doesn't really buy much, not when you're asking people to rebuy all your core books.

[Kane0]

Outside of the changes to the changes to the racial stat modifiers (which have multiple discussion threads dedicated to them), what problems does 5e have that should be fixed in the next edition?

So what are your gripes with 5e, and do you think they can be solved with a version 5.5 or do they need a full version 6.0?

Erm, checking over my houserule list...

- Dial back the recovery a touch, so a single long rest doesnt fix up 99% of your problems
- A touch more durability in Tier 1, so we can confortably spend a longer time there if we want. Conversely, a touch less in tiers 3 and 4 so things dont feel so padded
- Have inspiration work more like portent or a reroll so it works with advantage
- Have advantage cancel with disadvantage at a 1:1 rate or something so a single instance of one doesnt remove all instances of the other
- Give thrown weapons the same sort of love TWF and ammo-based weapons have got
- Straighten out the spells-per-turn rule so it isnt so janky
- incorporate the downtime and tool stuff from Xanathars into the PHB, and Tashas sidekicks and Saltmarsh naval rules into the DMG
- Revisit some of the DMG optional rules, especially flanking and rest variants. Have one that adds partial recovery of long rest resources during a short rest for example

And then theres a slew of race, class, spell, feat, etc changes but thats much deeper into the weeds.

Edit: oh and if more from the monster manual is getting the magic-abilities-that-arent-spells treatment im okay with that as long as its specified how those interact with things like dispel magic and counterspell.

And saves need to be looked at again, between only three and a half of them being used regularly and four out if six not progress as you level majority of the time

Also also, if skills and tools are what noncasters are supposed to have to compete with casters outside of combat... dont give skills and tools to casters then. Or give them more than the odd ribbon to be used out of combat.

And speaking of combat, remember the social and exploration pillars? Yeah, can we have some more content in those directions?

[Oramac]

2)
I don't like how much your character creation choices are frontloaded. Choices should be frontloaded, but it would be good if there were more choices latter too. I don't want 1st-4th level to summarize a 20th level character. This change is possible in 5.5, but unlikely.

Building on this, I want capstones that feel like capstones. They should be truly epic and world changing. If I look at my class capstone and say "eh, I'll just take 2 levels of Fighter for Action Surge instead", the capstone isn't powerful enough.

And yes, I know the next argument will be that low level features are the problem, since they are too powerful. To which I say: good. We're playing heroes in a fantasy game, in a fantasy setting. Low levels should be powerful; but the high level stuff should be legendary. And in 5e, it isn't.

EDIT: this is my big issue with the proposed Epic Boon system in OneD&D. It's even worse than the current capstone system. None of it has any class flavor, and the features are, at best, equally as lame as current capstones. Most of them are worse.

[Psyren]

I agree that epic boons currently suck, but I view that as a tuning issue that can be remedied through the playtest. The actual design goal of making class capstones come at 18 and subclass capstones at 14 I think is a brilliant improvement, as it greatly increases the number of tables that will actually get to use those capstones in play.

[Oramac]

I agree that epic boons currently suck, but I view that as a tuning issue that can be remedied through the playtest. The actual design goal of making class capstones come at 18 and subclass capstones at 14 I think is a brilliant improvement, as it greatly increases the number of tables that will actually get to use those capstones in play.

True, but if you're getting your subclass capstone at 14 and class capstone at 18, are they even really capstones at that point? Sure, they cap off the (sub)class, but they're hardly the pinnacle of the character. Especially the subclass one at 14th. That's barely into Tier 3.

Sure, a few more people will get to see those specific features (which is a good thing), but that doesn't really solve the problem. The 20th level feature, regardless of what it is, should reward a player for sticking with it for 20 levels. Epic Boon, Capstone, whatever you want to call it. It needs to be sufficiently amazing to incentivize a player away from that 1-2 level dip. Thus far, nothing is, by any name.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think they're actually going to do backward compatibility.

All evidence I have seen points to a degree of backwards compatibility akin to 3E -> 3.5E (in contrast to changes like 2E -> 3E -> 5E). It won't be perfectly compatible, but it is basically the same.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All evidence I have seen points to a degree of backwards compatibility akin to 3E -> 3.5E (in contrast to changes like 2E -> 3E -> 5E). It won't be perfectly compatible, but it is basically the same.

Judging from the 3e forums here (I have little other experience with that particular change), that means

1. Lots more fights in the community about orphaned stuff interacting with updated stuff
2. Lots of weird updates overriding/not overriding particular things
3. Lots more loopholes and WTF moments when old and new interact.
4. Still basically an entire refresh as to books and core mechanics are concerned. Use the old stuff at your own risk, and updates may or may not result in something playable. No warranties.

Which rather isn't backward compatibility in any meaningful sense as far as I'm concerned. Saying "here's a path to upgrade" =/= "your stuff will work as is". Microsoft puts a lot of effort into the latter, often to an absurd degree (the number of hacks in the core OS to support particular pieces of software last updated for Windows XP or before is...large). 3e -> 3.5e is more "yeah, this is a new thing. Expect anything from the old system to break unless you follow these manual editing steps. Which only reduce the risk of breakage to 30% instead of 95%".

[Psyren]

The 20th level feature, regardless of what it is, should reward a player for sticking with it for 20 levels. Epic Boon, Capstone, whatever you want to call it. It needs to be sufficiently amazing to incentivize a player away from that 1-2 level dip. Thus far, nothing is, by any name.

No argument here.


All evidence I have seen points to a degree of backwards compatibility akin to 3E -> 3.5E (in contrast to changes like 2E -> 3E -> 5E). It won't be perfectly compatible, but it is basically the same.

It'll definitely be close enough that my DM won't have a problem with us using 5e species, items, spells etc. We'll probably be throwing out most of the feats though.



1. Lots more fights in the community about orphaned stuff interacting with updated stuff
2. Lots of weird updates overriding/not overriding particular things
3. Lots more loopholes and WTF moments when old and new interact.
4. Still basically an entire refresh as to books and core mechanics are concerned. Use the old stuff at your own risk, and updates may or may not result in something playable. No warranties.

1. Who cares, "fights in the community" are unavoidable anyway
2. Make a ruling and accept that another table may make a different one
3. If a given mixture breaks something, stick with one and ban the other
4. No matter what they put out I'll have something playable and so will you. (Don't you houserule/ban swathes of 5e material anyway?)

[Kane0]

(Don't you houserule/ban swathes of 5e material anyway?)

Hey now, just because we do it ourselves doesn't mean we don't want the devs to do it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hey now, just because we do it ourselves doesn't mean we don't want the devs to do it.

Yeah. I make no claims about portability of my material[1]. But I'd rather the devs just be honest about it rather than claiming backward compatibility without delivering such. I'm totally fine with "yeah, it's a new edition. Things change. You can port stuff, but no guarantees." What I find deceptive is "yeah, these two will work just fine together...psych!". And my concerns are about the deception, not the actual product.

[1] and frankly, I homebrew a lot of content, but I really don't change the core rules or classes themselves much at all. My homebrew is almost entirely additive. I think my total list of changes to the actual printed player-facing content is
a) Frenzy barbarians get one free frenzy before it costs them exhaustion
b) Protection FS Can be used after seeing the roll.
c) Dragonborn can choose either +2 STR or +2 DEX.

That's...it. I have a whole set of variant classes, races, monsters, etc. But those sit along-side existing content (for now), not replacing it. I've talked about doing more core changes and probably will do so going forward...but I haven't up until now.

[Psyren]

Hey now, just because we do it ourselves doesn't mean we don't want the devs to do it.

And they're not. They could have; we could have gotten a complete mechanical departure/overhaul a la 3.5->4e or 4e->5e. But that's clearly not what 1DnD is.

Will it be as compatible as you and PP appear to want, I... guess not, but I think you'll figure things out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And they're not. They could have; we could have gotten a complete mechanical departure/overhaul a la 3.5->4e or 4e->5e. But that's clearly not what 1DnD is.

Will it be as compatible as you and PP appear to want, I... guess not, but I think you'll figure things out.

Sure. I'll figure things out. Mostly by ignoring OneD&D. For a lot of reasons. Including the bait and switch behavior of the devs.

[Psyren]

Sure. I'll figure things out. Mostly by ignoring OneD&D. For a lot of reasons. Including the bait and switch behavior of the devs.

Does this mean you're done with the playtest?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does this mean you're done with the playtest?

I've been done since about the second ua. Nothing I've seen has even come close to a must have. There have been a few "ehhh, ok, that's mildly interesting but not worth a whole new edition" things, a lot of "uhhh, ok, that's... something, I guess. Not anything interesting or anything I want, but not actually bad." And a decent amount of "why in the name of all that's good would you even think of putting that out into public with your name on it."

[OldTrees1]

Judging from the 3e forums here (I have little other experience with that particular change), that means

I am not contradicting your observations, however I played 3E through that 3E -> 3.5E change (I think I was DMing at the time). In practice, it was easy to mix and match content and the game continued to work.

Regardless of whether you would personally use the phrase "imperfectly backwards compatible", I find it useful to acknowledge the difference between a Major boundary (2E -> 3E -> 5E) and a Minor boundary (3E -> 3.5E -> Pathfinder 1E). This helps me understand how well material will be applicable and how ambitious my hopes for changes can be. In this case it helps me acknowledge that 5.5E will not fix my biggest pain points.

To give a software example:
If you accept this upgrade, your application will continue to work, but it will be buggy and you might have to adjust things.
(Not a great backwards compatibility policy. I am glad WotC does not release software).


Yeah. I make no claims about portability of my material[1]. But I'd rather the devs just be honest about it rather than claiming backward compatibility without delivering such. I'm totally fine with "yeah, it's a new edition. Things change. You can port stuff, but no guarantees." What I find deceptive is "yeah, these two will work just fine together...psych!". And my concerns are about the deception, not the actual product.

Yeah, as a user, I can describe it as imperfectly backwards compatible (with that "imperfectly" doing some work), but it is a bit dishonest for devs to claim it is backwards compatible. If you claim backwards compatibility in a sales pitch, it should be nigh perfect backwards compatibility.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In this case it helps me acknowledge that 5.5E will not fix my biggest pain points.



I agree. All the things I'd like for them to change (not gonna say "pain points", because really it's just mismatch between my style and theirs) are things that would require a significantly different new edition. Overhauling how spell-casting works, for example. Or redoing multiclassing from the ground up. Or abolishing the wizard.



(Not a great backwards compatibility policy. I am glad WotC does not release software).


Just wait for the new VTT! <microsoft>Your adventures are right where you left them!</microsoft>...not sure how much blue to make this....

[Bane's Wolf]

Outside of the changes to the changes to the racial stat modifiers (which have multiple discussion threads dedicated to them), what problems does 5e have that should be fixed in the next edition?

{snip}

For example, I’d love a new DMG with more polished skill rules guidelines, setting forth example DCs and giving more in depth guidance for failing forward, success at a cost, and levels of success. I’d like official optional rules (as in playtested ones) for a metacurrency, and more support for improvised skill actions in combat.

I’d also like the various class fixes from Tasha’s to be codified, with an official fully revised Monk and Ranger, plus all the minor fixes (like subclass specific additional sorcerer spells) back-ported to PHB classes.

Enthusiastically agreed :smallsmile:
The DMs guide has been in need of an overhaul for ages, even if only to add Tasha's and Xanathar's extra downtime activities. I am rather hopeful that we'll get a more sensible DMG


All the other places where 5e feels off to me, from the inaccuracy of CR calculations to stat utility imbalances to the unbalanced effectiveness of charisma based classes when multi-classing, seem like they would require fixes that break compatibility with the existing 5e system.

So what are your gripes with 5e, and do you think they can be solved with a version 5.5 or do they need a full version 6.0?

I have very few gripes with 5e that we can't fix with our own tweaks and house rules.
There are a few things i'm hoping to see though. :smallsmile:

The Strixhaven UA had (to me) a very interesting idea: Subclasses that don't belong to a single Class.
The rules were very clunky, because Classes get their subclass features at different levels, so these rules felt very weird to use.

IF OneDnD standardizes the classes so all get their subclass features at the same level, i would be very intrigued to see what cool new Special Subclasses we could create.

Examples:
- The Grey Wardens (from Dragon Age) could be a cool flavorful subclass that could be added to any other class to create Grey Warden "warriors and mages, barbarians and kings..."

- A subclass that is tied to Organizations in your world, like forgotten realms Harpers, requiring only that you be a member to take the subclass. (This feels a bit like 3e prestige classes, now that i think about it...)

- Ancestral Archetype Subclass. Instead of specializing your orc barbarian as a berserker, specialize as an ORC. Same with your Orc rogue, or Orc Cleric. Essentially, creating a subclass for each lineage could add some Elfy or Dwarfy or Orcy flavour and abilities to the character, regardless of its chosen class.


I have my doubts if any of these will happen, or even if it is a good idea, balance wise. But it would be interesting to try. :smallbiggrin:

[AvvyR]

I just really want them to fix all that nonsense around "Attack with a weapon" vs. "Weapon attack". "Natural weapons" count as weapons, but unarmed strikes and improvised weapons do not. Just all that horrible mess.

[Kane0]

I just really want them to fix all that nonsense around "Attack with a weapon" vs. "Weapon attack". "Natural weapons" count as weapons, but unarmed strikes and improvised weapons do not. Just all that horrible mess.

Very fair, and seconded.

[Mastikator]

Disclaim: I really like most of the stuff in the UA playtest. Especially the light weapon dual weapon fighting changes, the exhaustion rules and bardic inspiration.


Better guidelines for improvised weapons. How does a chair differ from a table differ from a door. Some guidelines for adding two-handed, versatile, heavy, damage dice etc.
Some guidelines for improvised actions, improvised special actions, improvised spell effects.
Better metamagic options, make them more open and versatile.
More social/exploration pillar features for martial classes.
I hope they don't follow through with their stealth and perception changes. I think stealth and perception works really great in the 2014 PHB. But I would like some guidelines for group stealth, ambushes.
I don't like the changes they've done to the Surprised condition. I think a better way to handle ambushes is to use the lowest passive stealth, and let the ambushees roll perception or be surprised. Surprised just means you don't act on your turn and can't see the enemy.
I want a dedicated stat block for wild shape. In the style of Summon Beast (make it weaker for non-moon, and add swimming/flying/burrowing at higher levels, as well as druid level scaling instead of spell level scaling)
I want added spells to all sorcerer subclasses, 2 really good adjustable spells is too strong IMO.
I'd like artificer to be a core class.

[stoutstien]

Id hope they'd just call it what it is. A faux TTRPG designed to run 5e and 5e adjacent games in a VTT with minimal need for adjusts or DM input.

[Psyren]

Enthusiastically agreed :smallsmile:
The DMs guide has been in need of an overhaul for ages, even if only to add Tasha's and Xanathar's extra downtime activities. I am rather hopeful that we'll get a more sensible DMG

Revamped Downtime is definitely coming! Crawford mentioned home base stuff in one of the devblogs.



The Strixhaven UA had (to me) a very interesting idea: Subclasses that don't belong to a single Class.
The rules were very clunky, because Classes get their subclass features at different levels, so these rules felt very weird to use.

IF OneDnD standardizes the classes so all get their subclass features at the same level, i would be very intrigued to see what cool new Special Subclasses we could create.

Examples:
- The Grey Wardens (from Dragon Age) could be a cool flavorful subclass that could be added to any other class to create Grey Warden "warriors and mages, barbarians and kings..."

- A subclass that is tied to Organizations in your world, like forgotten realms Harpers, requiring only that you be a member to take the subclass. (This feels a bit like 3e prestige classes, now that i think about it...)

- Ancestral Archetype Subclass. Instead of specializing your orc barbarian as a berserker, specialize as an ORC. Same with your Orc rogue, or Orc Cleric. Essentially, creating a subclass for each lineage could add some Elfy or Dwarfy or Orcy flavour and abilities to the character, regardless of its chosen class.


I'm excited by this idea too! Done correctly, we could regain all the benefits of prestige classes (and racial paragons) without the drawbacks this way. Here's a recent thread about it (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652808-What-if-there-were-universal-archetypes)


I just really want them to fix all that nonsense around "Attack with a weapon" vs. "Weapon attack". "Natural weapons" count as weapons, but unarmed strikes and improvised weapons do not. Just all that horrible mess.

Thirded.

Also I'm really hopeful that we get actual stealth rules.

[Oramac]

Examples:
- The Grey Wardens (from Dragon Age) could be a cool flavorful subclass that could be added to any other class to create Grey Warden "warriors and mages, barbarians and kings..."

- A subclass that is tied to Organizations in your world, like forgotten realms Harpers, requiring only that you be a member to take the subclass. (This feels a bit like 3e prestige classes, now that i think about it...)

- Ancestral Archetype Subclass. Instead of specializing your orc barbarian as a berserker, specialize as an ORC. Same with your Orc rogue, or Orc Cleric. Essentially, creating a subclass for each lineage could add some Elfy or Dwarfy or Orcy flavour and abilities to the character, regardless of its chosen class.

Ok, I absolutely LOVE this idea. Especially the race/species subclass thing. Hell, I like it enough that I could actually get behind standardizing the subclass levels (even for clerics). There's a bunch of work to be done to balance it, but as a concept, it's fantastic.


Disclaim: I really like most of the stuff in the UA playtest. Especially the light weapon dual weapon fighting changes, the exhaustion rules and bardic inspiration.

Generally speaking, I agree. Other than the stupid Jump Action bullhonky. That just needs to jump itself into a fire and die.


Better guidelines for improvised weapons. How does a chair differ from a table differ from a door. Some guidelines for adding two-handed, versatile, heavy, damage dice etc.
Some guidelines for improvised actions, improvised special actions, improvised spell effects.
Better metamagic options, make them more open and versatile.
More social/exploration pillar features for martial classes.
I hope they don't follow through with their stealth and perception changes. I think stealth and perception works really great in the 2014 PHB. But I would like some guidelines for group stealth, ambushes.
I don't like the changes they've done to the Surprised condition. I think a better way to handle ambushes is to use the lowest passive stealth, and let the ambushees roll perception or be surprised. Surprised just means you don't act on your turn and can't see the enemy.

I want added spells to all sorcerer subclasses, 2 really good adjustable spells is too strong IMO.
I'd like artificer to be a core class.


Agreed on all. Especially the stealth/perception interaction.


I want a dedicated stat block for wild shape. In the style of Summon Beast (make it weaker for non-moon, and add swimming/flying/burrowing at higher levels, as well as druid level scaling instead of spell level scaling)

I've been playing with this in the Demon Hunter class I'm writing (currently playtesting), and it works really well. I would definitely like to see this for Wild Shape.

[Joe the Rat]

And here by compatability, I was seeingoit to be "Use the adventures and whatnot with whatever ruleset," since they really don't give a fig about character creation. Thus far, the only big impacts are the potenital "No DM Crits", which would cut early level fight TPKs due to crazy luck, and the revised grappling, which turns everycase into an Escape DC save at end of turn condition.

[Zuras]

I have very few gripes with 5e that we can't fix with our own tweaks and house rules.
There are a few things i'm hoping to see though. :smallsmile:

The Strixhaven UA had (to me) a very interesting idea: Subclasses that don't belong to a single Class.
The rules were very clunky, because Classes get their subclass features at different levels, so these rules felt very weird to use.

IF OneDnD standardizes the classes so all get their subclass features at the same level, i would be very intrigued to see what cool new Special Subclasses we could create.

Examples:
- The Grey Wardens (from Dragon Age) could be a cool flavorful subclass that could be added to any other class to create Grey Warden "warriors and mages, barbarians and kings..."

- A subclass that is tied to Organizations in your world, like forgotten realms Harpers, requiring only that you be a member to take the subclass. (This feels a bit like 3e prestige classes, now that i think about it...)

- Ancestral Archetype Subclass. Instead of specializing your orc barbarian as a berserker, specialize as an ORC. Same with your Orc rogue, or Orc Cleric. Essentially, creating a subclass for each lineage could add some Elfy or Dwarfy or Orcy flavour and abilities to the character, regardless of its chosen class.


I have my doubts if any of these will happen, or even if it is a good idea, balance wise. But it would be interesting to try. :smallbiggrin:

I would very much like to see a solid archetype/prestige class/floating subclass system, but I’d almost be happier with it as a bolt-on set of new splatbooks, similar to the 4e essentials books. I also think the OneDnD team is going about it the wrong way, in terms of splitting all the spells into Divine/Arcane/Primal.

None of the potential mixed class archetypes that I feel aren’t served by existing class/subclass pairs are full casters. I want a floating subclass system to give me more to do with higher level martial characters, build a melee ranger, or a cleric/monk hybrid, I don’t need a different way to make a bladesinger.

For example, Hexblade is cool, but give me some rules that let me match the fiction of a 5th level fighter discovering an intelligent, malevolent weapon and developing dire magical powers as it warps his soul, instead of presenting me with the 1st level Warlock package if I try to represent the change by multiclassing.

Additionally, most strong mixed archetype subclasses give you some class-specific benefits so the archetype you’re dabbling in doesn’t mean wasted actions in combat (Mage Hand as a bonus action for the Arcane Trickster, War Magic for the Eldritch Knight, ways to impose disadvantaged saves for both). They are both flavorful and seem mechanically necessary, so any universal system would need to be a very clever design to avoid simply being inferior to the current mixed subclasses.

[Oramac]

the OneDnD team is going about it the wrong way, in terms of splitting all the spells into Divine/Arcane/Primal.

Oh man, don't even get me started on that. I've been pretty vocal about hating this idea, but it seems that OneD&D is headed in that direction.

Otherwise, I agree. But really, "more stuff for martials" isn't really limited to floating subclasses. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

[Necrosnoop110]

Or abolishing the wizard.
:frown::eek::redface: Not even a revision? Full abolishment?

[Pex]

Sorcerers get more spells known.

Fighter Battlemaster gets level appropriate new maneuver options at higher level.

Eldritch Blast is a Warlock class feature. Blade Pact itself provides medium armor and shield proficiency plus CH as attack stat, at 3rd level.

Exhaustion effects can remain as is, but there are easier remedies to recover - short rest removes one level, long rest removes two. Lesser Restoration spell removes one level, Greater Restoration removes all.

At some high level point, between levels 11 to 15, spellcasters may concentrate on a second spell. It's ok if this is a feat. If it is a feat, maybe also allow the willing recipient of a spell take over the concentration, but that recipient mayonly concentrate on one spell effect. I'm ok with the unfortunate side effect that barbarians can't when raging.

All classes should recover Something Nice on short rests and everything on long rests.

[Unoriginal]

The problem with subclasses that can be taken by several classes is that instead of tailoring one subclass to fit one class, you need to tailor the subclass to fit between 2 and 13 different classes.

That is incredibly difficult.

Making a subclass that is as attractive to a lvl 2 Rogue than it is to a lvl 2 Sorcerer or a lvl 2 Druid is borderline impossible. You could make a subclass that is the "Stealth Expert" for those three classes, for example, and now you have to figure out how the tool set offered by taking that subclass work with someone who is good at skills and doing one big attack per turn, someone who has spells and can modify those spells, and someone who has spells and can turn into an animal.

Even if you considers that it's not important if all the subclasses are equally attractive to the classes that can potentially take them, you're still left with the fact the class tool set and the subclass tool set have to work together somehow.

The only way to solve this would be to diminish the tool set given by each subclass and make them more generic. As in, you take the Grey Warden subclass? Great, you get the one power to resist against saving throws effect better. You take the Duelist subclass? Great, you get a boost when you're fighting a foe when neither your allies nor their are within 5ft of you. You take the Poisoner subclass? Great, you can bypass poison resistance and/or immunity.

Which would basically turn subclasses into just feats (or maybe feat chains).

[PhoenixPhyre]

:frown::eek::redface: Not even a revision? Full abolishment?

Note the blue. It means I'm not entirely serious.

However...if I had dictatorial control...I'd like to see the wizard broken up into a bunch of smaller classes and rethought. But, yeah.

[KorvinStarmast]

I just really want them to fix all that nonsense around "Attack with a weapon" vs. "Weapon attack". "Natural weapons" count as weapons, but unarmed strikes and improvised weapons do not. Just all that horrible mess. As do I. It was / is needlessly vague and needlessly complex/complicated for no reason.

Id hope they'd just call it what it is. A faux TTRPG designed to run 5e and 5e adjacent games in a VTT with minimal need for adjusts or DM input. *snicker*

:frown::eek::redface: Not even a revision? Full abolishment? In my Greyhawk campaign, Wizards are in a lot of cases hunted down and killed (bounties paid, 'wanted dead or alive') as are Artificers, due to the animosity the dragon clans have for wizards and artificers. This is due to their complicity in The Rain of Colorless Fire. In my Greyhawk campaign, RoCF destroyed and turned into a dust bowl the area that was once the great plains/prairie of Oerth. This was where ruminant herds roamed free and the dragons fed upon them. Most creatures on Oearth know to give their game preserve / food court a wide berth. Dragons have long memories. Dragon clans have even longer memories ...
With that said, there are some mages and transmuters, etc, as NPCs who are careful about becoming too public with their talents ... but one of them recently got on the wrong side of a dragon turtle and is dead. This happened off screen, but I informed the PCs via an NPCs exposition that this guy who had helped to make a breastplate out of Umber Hulk Chitin was no longer among the living.

Eldritch Blast is a Warlock class feature. Blade Pact itself provides medium armor and shield proficiency plus CH as attack stat, at 3rd level. And get rid of hexblade. Made the core patrons Fiend, Celestial, ArchFey (or Genie), and GOO. Please. Tweak level 14 GOO feature a bit.

Exhaustion effects can remain as is, but there are easier remedies to recover - short rest removes one level, long rest removes two. Lesser Restoration spell removes one level, Greater Restoration removes all. Yeah, something like that.
At some high level point, between levels 11 to 15, spellcasters may concentrate on a second spell. No. Please no. I like how Concentration acts as limiter/governor on magic use. You have to make a choice, make a decision.

The problem with subclasses that can be taken by several classes is that instead of tailoring one subclass to fit one class, you need to tailor the subclass to fit between 2 and 13 different classes.

That is incredibly difficult. And as such, a bad idea. I am very much against that. Leave it to feats.

The only way to solve this would be to diminish the tool set given by each subclass and make them more generic. As in, you take the Grey Warden subclass? Great, you get the one power to resist against saving throws effect better. You take the Duelist subclass? Great, you get a boost when you're fighting a foe when neither your allies nor their are within 5ft of you. You take the Poisoner subclass? Great, you can bypass poison resistance and/or immunity.

Which would basically turn subclasses into just feats (or maybe feat chains). I had begun my answer before I read all of your answer. Well articulated. +10

[paladinn]

A lot of the classes and subclasses intro'd in the PHB really need to be reworked in light of what came out in XGtE and TCoE. A lot of what's in PHB is hopelessly obsolete now. Who wants to play a PHB ranger BTB when there were so many better options in later volumes? And the baseline "hunter" ranger drastically needs to be remodeled. Likewise with the baseline "champion" fighter. Same for a lot of druid circles and bard colleges.

Since all casters are now "spontaneous", there needs to be a reason for sorcerers, etc., to exist. Just as sorcerers were the original "spontaneous" casters in 3e, so they could be the "spell point" casters in 1DD. Give them one pot of points, combining what would be "normal" spell points with metamagic points, and let the sorc use as wished. Even give a bonus based on Cha bonus. Let them use simple weapons ala 3e.

Change bardic casting to be more primal/druidic and Please make bards half-casters.

[Kane0]

Sorcerers get more spells known.

Counteroffer: All the other casters get fewer spells known.



Eldritch Blast is a Warlock class feature.

Counteroffer: Invocations that apply to EB now work with all ranged attack cantrips.



Exhaustion effects can remain as is, but there are easier remedies to recover - short rest removes one level, long rest removes two. Lesser Restoration spell removes one level, Greater Restoration removes all.

All classes should recover Something Nice on short rests and everything on long rests.
Agreed on these, though maybe not quite everything in one long rest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Counteroffer: All the other casters get fewer spells known.

Sign me up for that one.

[Necrosnoop110]

Note the blue. It means I'm not entirely serious.

However...if I had dictatorial control...I'd like to see the wizard broken up into a bunch of smaller classes and rethought. But, yeah.

Ha! TIL. Never knew blue meant sarcasm. But broken up and revised would make sense to me.

[Leon]

And the baseline "hunter" ranger drastically needs to be remodeled.

"Hunter" Ranger is fine, its a currently better now than the horrid mess that the recent UA put forward (Its strength is the choices that you can chose to suit how your possibly going to be playing it.)
The Beast-Master is what needs a lot of work, it needs to be brought inline with the Drakewarden at the very least.

[Bane's Wolf]

I'm excited by this idea too! Done correctly, we could regain all the benefits of prestige classes (and racial paragons) without the drawbacks this way. Here's a recent thread about it


Oooo :smallbiggrin:
Thanks for the link. I've been a lurker for years, but only signed up very recently, so i'm still finding my feats (Ha :smalltongue:) with navigating the forums. i'm checking it out now :smallbiggrin:


Generally speaking, I agree. Other than the stupid Jump Action bullhonky. That just needs to jump itself into a fire and die.

I think i'm the only person i know who doesn't Hate the Jump Action yet... (duck and cover)
I agree that it is a weird change, and I reserve the right to change my mind later, but i really want to playtest it a bit before i reject the idea completely.

i agree that small jumps (maybe half strength score?) should just be part of movement, but a big dramatic leap over a chasm, or onto enemies, should be a dramatic action like it would be in a movie, worthy of a roll of the dice.
If nothing else, it could stop that awkward "stuck in mid air till next turn because i ran out of movement" situation. A good jump check could allow you to cover more ground than your movement would normally allow?
Maybe give warriors the ability to jump as a bonus action? Or jump as one of your attacks, like Shove or Grapple? or combine an big attack with the jump action to slice at the dragon? or fire your crossbow mid air - max payne style?

I dunno. i may decide this is an over-complicated mess, but i'd like to give it a proper test before i close the chapter on this rule :smallredface:


Disclaim: I really like most of the stuff in the UA playtest. Especially the light weapon dual weapon fighting changes, the exhaustion rules and bardic inspiration.
Me too :smallwink:



Better guidelines for improvised weapons. How does a chair differ from a table differ from a door. Some guidelines for adding two-handed, versatile, heavy, damage dice etc.
Some guidelines for improvised actions, improvised special actions, improvised spell effects.
Better metamagic options, make them more open and versatile.
More social/exploration pillar features for martial classes.
I hope they don't follow through with their stealth and perception changes. I think stealth and perception works really great in the 2014 PHB. But I would like some guidelines for group stealth, ambushes.
I don't like the changes they've done to the Surprised condition. I think a better way to handle ambushes is to use the lowest passive stealth, and let the ambushees roll perception or be surprised. Surprised just means you don't act on your turn and can't see the enemy.
I want a dedicated stat block for wild shape. In the style of Summon Beast (make it weaker for non-moon, and add swimming/flying/burrowing at higher levels, as well as druid level scaling instead of spell level scaling)
I want added spells to all sorcerer subclasses, 2 really good adjustable spells is too strong IMO.
I'd like artificer to be a core class.


Agreed with all of the above, except perhaps the druid wild shape...
I agree with the dedicated stat block, but i feel the druid should behave something closer to a cleric's Channel Divinity, which it uses to change into small animals (or something similar).

Then your Druid Subclass modifies this ability to let you do the Cool Subclass Thing (combat wild shape, Elemental Wild shape, Summon wildfire spirit, etc.)

I get the feeling the designers backed themselves into a corner by giving all druids the same wild shape ability. And then gave Moon Circle both better Beasts, as well as shaping into Elementals. I feel that Moon druid and Elemental druid should be different subclasses.

I feel some druids should Summon Minions, while some have Combat forms, while some have Big Animal (or Plant) companions

This is just a small thought though. I'm not married to this idea :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The problem with "jumping over a chasm should be a big dramatic Action!" is that it penalizes martials for no reason. You know who can get across that chasm and still attack? A caster!

I'm even iffy on it being a bonus action, because now it's screwing over the barbarian and monk, two classes that should definitely be jumping all over the place. "I raged on round one, so now I have to wait until round two to jump over there, and even if I could jump over there as an action, I'm probably going to lose my rage instead."

I agree that "ran out of movement, stuck in midair" is silly, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0176.html) but I think they can improve/resolve that without implementing something even worse.

[Bane's Wolf]

The problem with "jumping over a chasm should be a big dramatic Action!" is that it penalizes martials for no reason. You know who can get across that chasm and still attack? A caster!

I'm even iffy on it being a bonus action, because now it's screwing over the barbarian and monk, two classes that should definitely be jumping all over the place. "I raged on round one, so now I have to wait until round two to jump over there, and even if I could jump over there as an action, I'm probably going to lose my rage instead."

I agree that "ran out of movement, stuck in midair" but I think they can improve/resolve that without implementing something even worse.

I agree with everything you say, and i have no real answers to fix all the problems this creates (yet...? :smalleek:)

There may be solutions, such as martials jumping as part of the attack, or special crushing damage for jumping on an enemy. I'll definitely mess around with this in my own games and see how it plays out.
I'm just not ready to bin the idea yet. I want to see if this could lead someplace new.
I kinda wish we could get an idea from the designers. I would love to know what they are thinking with this change :smallconfused:

[Kane0]

i agree that small jumps (maybe half strength score?) should just be part of movement, but a big dramatic leap over a chasm, or onto enemies, should be a dramatic action like it would be in a movie, worthy of a roll of the dice.
If nothing else, it could stop that awkward "stuck in mid air till next turn because i ran out of movement" situation. A good jump check could allow you to cover more ground than your movement would normally allow?


The existing rules already cover this. Small jumps use your movement and are determined by your strength, usually needing a runing start. If you want to take a jump longer than that your DM can call for a check, and using a check could potentially use your action. If that jump would be longer than what your movement would allow you might also need to use an action on dash to get extra movement in order to complete it.

Dedicating all jumps to its own action makes about as much sense as dedicating all climbs to a climb action.

[KorvinStarmast]

I will be happy to die on the hill that says Jump is movement, the idea of making it an action is needlessly penal to martial characters.
WotC, get heads out of that dark place ... :smallfurious:

[DruidAlanon]

Taking as a starting point that 5e is not inherently broken and that if something works don't change it, I'd prefer to see a 5.5e that fixes minor stuff here and there and deepens RP in the way Mastikator described earlier.

I would also like to see certain sub(classes) reworked, e.g. Berseker, Purple Dragon Knight, Spores, MONKS, etc.

There's a lot of fine tuning that can be done in 5e but it CAN be done and should be done.

I think with One D&D we have clear example where the marketing team said "we need a new edition" and devs are trying to deliver.

[Oramac]

I want a dedicated stat block for wild shape. In the style of Summon Beast (make it weaker for non-moon, and add swimming/flying/burrowing at higher levels, as well as druid level scaling instead of spell level scaling)



Agreed with all of the above, except perhaps the druid wild shape...
I agree with the dedicated stat block, but i feel the druid should behave something closer to a cleric's Channel Divinity, which it uses to change into small animals (or something similar).

Then your Druid Subclass modifies this ability to let you do the Cool Subclass Thing (combat wild shape, Elemental Wild shape, Summon wildfire spirit, etc.)

I get the feeling the designers backed themselves into a corner by giving all druids the same wild shape ability. And then gave Moon Circle both better Beasts, as well as shaping into Elementals. I feel that Moon druid and Elemental druid should be different subclasses.

I feel some druids should Summon Minions, while some have Combat forms, while some have Big Animal (or Plant) companions

I'd say, why not both? It wouldn't be hard to have a base Wild Shape stat block that's effectively just a tabby cat (or something similar), then your subclass gets to modify/augment it in some New And Exciting Way. Honestly, I think this might be the best of both worlds.

[Bane's Wolf]

I'd say, why not both? It wouldn't be hard to have a base Wild Shape stat block that's effectively just a tabby cat (or something similar), then your subclass gets to modify/augment it in some New And Exciting Way. Honestly, I think this might be the best of both worlds.

Fully agreed :smallbiggrin:

[Arkhios]

Since you mentioned a new DMG, one thing that comes to mind, that I would like to see, is a more robust, and both actually and functionally coherent monster creation rules. Right now, even though you are capable of creating a monster with the current rules, figuring out a Challenge Rating based on this mess is dubious at best.

[Amechra]

Right now, even though you are capable of creating a monster with the current rules, figuring out a Challenge Rating based on this mess is dubious at best.

Hot take: this doesn't really matter, because 5e's CR rules are FAR too granular.

We'd probably be better off with CR=proficiency bonus, with monsters going from +1 to +8 (or whatever else makes the most sense).

[Mastikator]

Agreed with all of the above, except perhaps the druid wild shape...
I agree with the dedicated stat block, but i feel the druid should behave something closer to a cleric's Channel Divinity, which it uses to change into small animals (or something similar).

Then your Druid Subclass modifies this ability to let you do the Cool Subclass Thing (combat wild shape, Elemental Wild shape, Summon wildfire spirit, etc.)

I get the feeling the designers backed themselves into a corner by giving all druids the same wild shape ability. And then gave Moon Circle both better Beasts, as well as shaping into Elementals. I feel that Moon druid and Elemental druid should be different subclasses.

I feel some druids should Summon Minions, while some have Combat forms, while some have Big Animal (or Plant) companions

This is just a small thought though. I'm not married to this idea :smalltongue:

While we're on the topic of hope.

I hope they add optional special attacks in the wild shape stat block. Special attacks like poison, disease, grapple/restrain, shove prone, pounce.
Stat block modes like attacker, defender, speedster, flyer, swimmer, burrower.

These can be level gated and at higher levels, combinable. With moon druid counting as higher level, and also gaining extra modes like "is an elemental". That way you could describe it as any animal you prefer, not be subject to mother may I from the DM of "have I seen this animal" nonsense. You could even make animal elementals with fire damage AND pounce at very high level.

The main problem I see with wild shape is that it requires the player to delve into the monster manual and keep track of different stats. I've seen this in play, it's not pretty. It can easily add a full extra hour to each combat because the player didn't pre-prepare/don't own the monster manual and the DM is merciful to a casual innocent player. Just put the available stats directly into the player's hands.

[Bane's Wolf]

While we're on the topic of hope.

I hope they add optional special attacks in the wild shape stat block. Special attacks like poison, disease, grapple/restrain, shove prone, pounce.
Stat block modes like attacker, defender, speedster, flyer, swimmer, burrower.

These can be level gated and at higher levels, combinable. With moon druid counting as higher level, and also gaining extra modes like "is an elemental". That way you could describe it as any animal you prefer, not be subject to mother may I from the DM of "have I seen this animal" nonsense. You could even make animal elementals with fire damage AND pounce at very high level.

The main problem I see with wild shape is that it requires the player to delve into the monster manual and keep track of different stats. I've seen this in play, it's not pretty. It can easily add a full extra hour to each combat because the player didn't pre-prepare/don't own the monster manual and the DM is merciful to a casual innocent player. Just put the available stats directly into the player's hands.

Hell Yeah :smallbiggrin:

I've been that DM, desperately paging back and forth in the Monster Manual, trying to help a druid pick the best Wild-Shape for the situation.
This would help a lot :smallsmile:


On a slight tangent: The biggest lie in the players handbook is under the summon fey creatures spell. Something to the effect of "Your Dungeon Master has all the information needed" to help you pick fey creatures to summon. (paraphrased because i'm at work away from my books)

And as a DM I'm reading the spell and thinking: "I do...?":smalleek:

A List or three would have been a great help...
I am however pretty confident that this will be improved in the new edition :smallsmile:

i believe most of us eventually find or create stat cards for our summoner/wildshaper players, but holy cow would that have been a great help when i was new :smallwink:

[Oramac]

Hot take: this doesn't really matter, because 5e's CR rules are FAR too granular.

We'd probably be better off with CR=proficiency bonus, with monsters going from +1 to +8 (or whatever else makes the most sense).

I'd be all for this. It'd still need some explanation. Like, how does CR=proficiency apply when there's one Big Bag compared to many little monsters? Is there a "break-even" point where <number of monsters> is equal to <CR=Prof>?

But yea, good idea.


While we're on the topic of hope.

snip

Hell yea. Loads of good ideas in there.


The main problem I see with wild shape is that it requires the player to delve into the monster manual and keep track of different stats. I've seen this in play, it's not pretty. It can easily add a full extra hour to each combat because the player didn't pre-prepare/don't own the monster manual and the DM is merciful to a casual innocent player. Just put the available stats directly into the player's hands.

Nightmares right there. And not the cool ones in the MM. Real, actual, nightmares as a DM trying to help with this AND keep combat flowing smoothly.

[Kane0]

We could take say the Tasha's Beastmaster spirits and adapt them into some generic Wildshape options? Then for subclasses you can let the creature type change and add in one or two features on top.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We could take say the Tasha's Beastmaster spirits and adapt them into some generic Wildshape options? Then for subclasses you can let the creature type change and add in one or two features on top.

I've wanted to do this for a long time for wildshape. Personally, I hate all the "dig through the monster books" abilities. Both because ultra clunky and abuseable. It guarantees that beasts (especially) are only the most anodyne, boring things. Because otherwise it's a massive power boost for summoners and druids (to be redundant).

[Kane0]

That sounds plenty actionable, I think i'll spin up a homebrew thread.

[Amechra]

Do we even need a full statblock for Wild Shape? You could honestly get pretty far by just making the default something like...


Wild Shape
2/short rest, you may adopt the form of a small, furtive animal as a bonus action. While transformed, you gain the following benefits and drawbacks:


Your size becomes Tiny, and you become indistinguishable from a normal animal of whatever type you chose.
You may use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Dexterity modifier when making Dexterity checks, Dexterity saving throws, or when determining your armor class.
You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks appropriate to your new form.
You may reduce your walking speed to 5ft to gain a Flying or Swimming speed equal to your original walking speed.
You cannot attack, cast spells, or speak while in this form, and cannot use any items or tools that would require hands.


When you transform, anything you're wearing that's made out of animal or vegetable materials transforms with you, while all other materials remain the same. While transformed, you gain a single temporary hit-point — the transformation lasts one hour or until you lose that temporary hitpoint.

I mean, my real preference would be something like the Dungeon World Druid's Shapeshifter move, but that's really not how D&D does things:


Shapeshifter
When you call upon the spirits to change your shape, roll+Wis.

✴ On a 10+ hold 3.
✴ On a 7–9 hold 2.
✴ On a miss hold 1 in addition to whatever the GM says.

You may take on the physical form of any species whose essence you have studied or who lives in your land: you and your possessions meld into a perfect copy of the species’ form. You have any innate abilities and weaknesses of the form: claws, wings, gills, breathing water instead of air. You still use your normal stats but some moves may be harder to trigger—a housecat will find it hard to do battle with an ogre. The GM will also tell you one or more moves associated with your new form. Spend 1 hold to make that move. Once you’re out of hold, you return to your natural form. At any time, you may spend all your hold and revert to your natural form.