What is something you wish 5e did better.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.