Players' backstories do not play such a key role. Whatever happened to the 3rd son of loving parents from a small village simply striking out on his own for fame and fortune?
Strong agree on this one: a character’s personality is so much more important than a backstory, especially when the latter hampers their engagement with the other players or main story because they’re so focused on their own plot. But this is more of a “culture” thing that can’t really be fixed by the rulebooks, unfortunately.
I feel the same way about races: I like that you can sometimes play a “special” race like Goblin or, I don’t know, Rabbitfolk. But I also like it when most characters are still “classic” races: elves, dwarves, halflings, and orcs (one of my players really likes orcs, so they’re savage but not evil in my worlds). Again, this is a “game culture” thing, though, and I’ve never really had issues with aaracokra firbolg locathah pixie parties in my groups.
Redesign the mechanics so that combat isn't so heavily weighed in favor of the players.
Beef up the boss monsters so that they are able to go toe to toe with a group of adventurers without having to always rely on minions. It's really getting old at this point.
Increase the cost and rarity of basic healing potions. Being available everywhere like a Coke machine is ridiculous.
Eliminate the death savings throws. Drop to zero hp? You're character is dead. Deal with it, and roll up another character.
Stop encouraging players to spend so much time on their character's backstory. The DM can't use everyone's backstory in a campaign anyway, and it will make it easier to let go, should the player's character die.
Stop calling them races in the sourcebooks. They are different species.
Nerf the Paladin and the Rogue. Both classes are OP.
Redesign the mechanics so that combat isn't so heavily weighed in favor of the players.
Beef up the boss monsters so that they are able to go toe to toe with a group of adventurers without having to always rely on minions. It's really getting old at this point.
Increase the cost and rarity of basic healing potions. Being available everywhere like a Coke machine is ridiculous.
Eliminate the death savings throws. Drop to zero hp? You're character is dead. Deal with it, and roll up another character.
Stop encouraging players to spend so much time on their character's backstory. The DM can't use everyone's backstory in a campaign anyway, and it will make it easier to let go, should the player's character die.
Stop calling them races in the sourcebooks. They are different species.
Nerf the Paladin and the Rogue. Both classes are OP.
The first few are something Wotc thinks they should never ever do again so have fun pushing that.
They aren't really the game does so little to push backstory in text or mechanics thats mostly a game culture thing.This part is simply wrong if your in a module or otherwise get some extra time.
Cheap and convenient potions exist to allow groups without solid healers to do their thing. It's not exactly hard to increase the rarity yourself, but I don't see an issue with it as is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
- I'm not too much of a fan of the official lore being shoved into the player's handbook and stuff. In the monster books I don't find it problematic, but I think it was done way too much in the player's handbook. I'd personally like to see that lore put into another book which comes out with the core main 3 rulebooks of 6E.
- I hope for some actual depth to pure martial classes without specific subclasses like the amazing battlemaster. I get that some people just like to roll a D20 and roll a damage dice (like 1 of my players) so I hope for some optional simplicity. Like for example, all martial classes could have superiority dice, but there could be options for maneuvers that could just flat out change numbers to make it nicer for them.
- I want stuff like action economy, a guide on how to be a good DM and Player, as well as a chapter on session 0 in the first rulebooks released.
- In terms of races, I think the ones in the books are currently fine, although I do worry it's getting a little out of hand with stuff like the rabbitfolk and some of the other stuff in recent UA. I think there is a threshold where things should be left to be homebrewed and not made official races. My opinion about races is that if you walk into a town as that race, and no one knows what race you are, and gives you weird looks, then I think that race should be left for homebrew and not official content. You can still get glares or odd looks in my scenario and that race will be fine to be officially added, like dragonborns or tieflings, but I think that educated people should reasonably know what you at least are.I also think races should be renamed species in D&D. Have no problem with a crazy race, just I don't want to start having to ban official content like crazy to keep my world in it's canon. I love homebrew, and I think some things should be left for homebrew and not official content. I also think ability scores in terms of races should be changed up so that races don't give ability increases as there would be no need for weird variant rules or official rules to exist for ability score swapping.
- I think 6E should be as simplistic/complex as 5e. Not any more simplistic, but not any more complex. Maybe a bit more complex in terms of martial classes as those as said earlier I think need some changes. The simplicity of 5e allows for an easy learning curve and less book looking for rules, but if it was less complex then things would get too vague, and too things would have to be decided by DM rulings.
I've heard on this thread that death saves should be ditched and death to be made much more likely. I personally like the death save system as it acts as a safety net for DMs who accidentally make a brutal encounter that they didn't want to be this brutal as well as it makes players feel like they didn't just get purposefully murdered by the DM. I just think that it needs to be harder to stabilize/heal a fallen party member without turning healers into just healbots. Maybe if you succeed on 3 death saves you are instead stabilized and not revived at 1 hit point, and you use healing spells to have party members succeed on 2 death saves (seems balanced). If you get healed when stabilized you are back up. This way, death can more easily happen and can't just be prevented by one healer boi. In terms of stabilizing, it only honestly needs to be a bit harder to do to be balanced. Like stabilizing could give a successful death save, and someone who reaches 2 death saves or more, via a stabilize is stabilized. I think giving out exhaustion per failed death save, or per every time you are reduced to 0 hit points is a good way to keep things in terms of death saves challenging. I think removing death saves would just make this game into dark souls unless the DM is careful. I have nothing against Dark Souls gritty hard games, but not everyone wants it.
There are two people in this thread who have post here with the sole intent of critique the ideas of other people, but have not provided any ideas of their own.
So, if you think you're so smart, come up with your own ideas, and present them here.
I've heard on this thread that death saves should be ditched and death to be made much more likely. I personally like the death save system as it acts as a safety net for DMs who accidentally make a brutal encounter that they didn't want to be this brutal as well as it makes players feel like they didn't just get purposefully murdered by the DM. I just think that it needs to be harder to stabilize/heal a fallen party member without turning healers into just healbots. Maybe if you succeed on 3 death saves you are instead stabilized and not revived at 1 hit point, and you use healing spells to have party members succeed on 2 death saves (seems balanced). If you get healed when stabilized you are back up. This way, death can more easily happen and can't just be prevented by one healer boi. In terms of stabilizing, it only honestly needs to be a bit harder to do to be balanced. Like stabilizing could give a successful death save, and someone who reaches 2 death saves or more, via a stabilize is stabilized. I think giving out exhaustion per failed death save, or per every time you are reduced to 0 hit points is a good way to keep things in terms of death saves challenging. I think removing death saves would just make this game into dark souls unless the DM is careful. I have nothing against Dark Souls gritty hard games, but not everyone wants it.
I agree on most of those points. However, getting three successes does not bring you to one hitpoint. It stabilizes you. I'd imagine you meant rolling a twenty, because that does bring you to 1 hitpoint.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco. No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
Various species are evil, because their gods made them that way, as per the traditional lore.
Players' backstories do not play such a key role. Whatever happened to the 3rd son of loving parents from a small village simply striking out on his own for fame and fortune?
An overhaul of the Feats. Either balance them (Lucky is banned at my table, Observant can ruin any suspense in a game), or remove them entirely. I think Healer is a great Feat, but no one ever takes it, because so few tables play by actual RAW when it comes to players being at 0 HP. So certain Feats should simply be removed or altered.
A streamlining and balancing of the sub-classes. 18 subclasses of Cleric, but only 8 for Sorcerer? 10 and 10 would be reasonable.
Much more onerous limitations on multi-classing. If a player MC's, bring back hard caps on levels they can get in one class.
Just so you are aware, this comes across as "I want D&D to be played my way, and only my way. I want all options which are not my way removing and banning from ever being played, or even talked about, because only my way is right". This is particularly so with the first 2 statements.
For myself, I would love to see a stripped down, mechanics-only ruleset without lore, as described by the OP. So much of the rules is lore-based to a greater or lesser degree, and it's fairly difficult to use the rules without any of the lore because of that.
I would also like the rules for Martial characters to be spiced up. You shouldn't need to play a caster, or homebrew/improvise actions, to have a decent variety of options in combat.
I would also like the rules for Martial characters to be spiced up. You shouldn't need to play a caster, or homebrew/improvise actions, to have a decent variety of options in combat.
Agreed, I think that people should be able to improvise their own maneuvers in combat without having to be a particular subclass. It needn't be a whole table of them either, it could just be a generic maneuver that the player can flavor as they wish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As the question is specifically "what do you want to see in D&D 5e", I will try to restrict my notions to things I think could be reasonably done in 5e.
1.) An Olcadan's Manual of Arms or similar book that expands martial combat. Martial combat being so incredibly lackluster is probably my largest single gripe in 5e. All martial classes should have access to Superiority and Maneuvers, not just one subclass of the fighter. If you're trained enough in martial combat to have a signature combat style (the "Fighting Style" feature of fighters, rangers, paladins, and blood hunters), you're trained enough to know maneuvers. All fighting styles could have their own inherent maneuver you can perform with that style, and the martial classes could select additional maneuvers similarly to the Battle Master, if to a lesser degree. The Battle Master could be the subclass for doubling down on Superiority, or it could simply be something else since it's no longer the only way to gain meaningful access to Superiority.
Frankly, the Superiority/Maneuver system is a fantastic chassis to hang martial abilities on. Each (martial) weapon could have its own special maneuver those proficient with it (and who have access to Superiority) can employ to help set martial weapons apart and make them valuable. Many of the game's overpowered combat feats could be reworked into Maneuvers that inherently limit access to them, balancing out the Turbo Mega Cheese that comes from certain feat combinations. Certain classes, subclasses, or even feats could add maneuvers to a character's available pool to choose from the same way Warlock patrons add spells to your spell list, to set those classes apart and better define their combat styles. The sky's the limit.
And for tables that don't want the "unnecessary" complexity? Just ditch the book, or favor the barbarian as a weapon-y "martial" class that doesn't bother with superiority and instead just hits stuff harder.
2.) More spells that are not available on the general spell lists. It would be awesome if there was a set of spells in the DMG or a DM-aimed follow-up book that were built on different rules or did different things than general-access player spells that were considered "Special" spells, DM-Only spells, or spells you had to find instead of just getting for free when leveling up. The Dunamancy spells in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount are a great start, but it would be super cool if there were spells that could break the rules of the spellcasting system...that players couldn't take unless the DM told them they could. Artifacts of lost cultures, aberrations in the magical equations of reality, the culmination of an ancient spellcaster's life's work - stuff the DM could use as the basis for Lost Magic. Yes, the DM can just invent these sorts of things, but a foundational list of example Lost Magics would be a really cool tool to have. As would a way for DDB to implement "Lost Magic" in a way other than jank-ass feat workarounds, but eh.
...most everything else I can think of off the top of my head that I want are more things DDB can't/won't implement than things Wizards would need to bother with. I'd like much stronger rules for customizing the benefits/durations of long and short rests, for example - my table really wanted to use the DMG's Slow Natural Healing rule for one of our games, but DDB makes that extremely finicky and annoying to the point where we had to drop it. I'd love to be able to make long rests less of an immersion-breaking Wolverine Regeneration total reset, but DDB doesn't let me do that because Wizards doesn't let me do that. In a P&P game I could just declare rules like "Slow Natural Healing is in effect, you regain one hit die per long rest instead of half of them, but if you're resting somewhere safe and comfortable, such as a well-appointed inn, that rate accelerates and you regain two Hit Dice and can clear two levels of exhaustion with one rest", but DDB doesn't really give me the option to control what rests do in my games. Which sucks, but isn't really a Wizards problem.
I like the idea of there being maneuvers tied to Fighting Styles. That would still allow the Battle Master to keep their spot as the "complex" Fighter Subclass, but expand on what most martial classes (and those willing to take the Feat) can do.
We don't actually use Avrae - we use the DDB character sheets directly. When you click the "Long Rest" button, you get a by-the-book default long rest whether you want one or not. To do anything else you need to reset the sheet manually, which can be a process for higher-level characters. It's an annoyance, but eh.
I would like a larger focus on "play your way and other's will play theirs".
Oh wait. That's already in there. I guess there's no stopping the "my way is the right way" arguments. :(
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I admit that sharing the Battlemaster Maneuvers around might not be such a bad idea. I've been against it, but having done more study of the subclass I begin to see the point. I kind of think the Feat takes care of it well enough, but it is worth considering. Having a set of maneuvers for each Fighting Style would be grand. I'm uncertain about extending it to individual weapons, though possibly categories of weapons would work. It's getting a little far into the Crunch Zone for each weapon to have a maneuver.
More spells is kind of iffy. The moment you publish a list of new "special" spells for player characters they stop being special. Everyone will demand they be used, kind of like how Feats are an "optional" rule, and yet imagine the outcry if you actually told players they couldn't use them. They are pretty nearly hardwired into the core now. I am reminded of how the 2nd Edition "splat books" and the 3rd Edition Prestige Classes killed those Editions with power creep and rules bloat and the expectation that things presented as optional like the splat books, or just as examples, like the early Prestige Classes, became mandatory in the eyes of the player base. DM and Monster Only spells stop being so once published.
I'm largely happy with D&D as is, but I'd love that Arms & Equipment Guide and a Harsh Conditions Survival Guide. I'm hoping to see Planescape and Spelljammer someday.
I'll answer with my usual response to this type of thread...
More classes. Specifically a swordmage and warlord. Warlord because we have barely any martials, let alone a dedicated support martial. Swordmage because a spell striking elemental/arcane type class is a role not yet filled is a satisfying manner.
(an elemental paladin subclass would work as a substitute, but even time I mention that I get jumped on by people saying it doesn't fit the paladin theme.)
Paladin would be the easiest martial class to do an elemental themed subclass for. Swapping damage type from Radiant to Fire, Cold etc for smites and tossing in some other bits. I would prefer it as a Fighter subclass, but I can see how Paladin could work.
If you can justify the elemental paladin thematically, it could be awesome. I’d call it the Oath of Balance, handling all the universe’s primal forces and keeping the balance between them. Think Jedi philosophy. “Darkness, light, peace, violence, life, death that feeds new life, and between it all a force. And inside me, that same force.” That fits Paladins and is a thematic gap that could use filling.
But knowing WotC, they’ll probably just make it a boring “Oath of the Elements” where the tenets are “likes elements” and “chills with genies.”
Nor is there an index in Tasha's. (Shield your eyes, don't look at the name, Vince...)
If you say that word 3 times in succession, you will conjure up creatures beyond your worst nightmares. They will flit around you and say "I want to play a flying pony with anime eyes, but has the abilities of an ancient red dragon, and naturally, is good, not evil.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, Tashas's Cauldron of Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
Paladin would be the easiest martial class to do an elemental themed subclass for. Swapping damage type from Radiant to Fire, Cold etc for smites and tossing in some other bits. I would prefer it as a Fighter subclass, but I can see how Paladin could work.
Pity that the paladin chassis has smite as a class feature rather than subclass. Something like a necrotic smite would already suit many peoples idea of an oathbreaker. How would you work it as a fighter subclass?
I like the classes which allow you to pick an elemental at the start, such as draconic sorcerer or genielock.
If you can justify the elemental paladin thematically, it could be awesome. I’d call it the Oath of Balance, handling all the universe’s primal forces and keeping the balance between them. Think Jedi philosophy. “Darkness, light, peace, violence, life, death that feeds new life, and between it all a force. And inside me, that same force.” That fits Paladins and is a thematic gap that could use filling.
But knowing WotC, they’ll probably just make it a boring “Oath of the Elements” where the tenets are “likes elements” and “chills with genies.”
Yeah I think calling it something like oath of balance would mesh with the other subclass themes better. Though I doubt even that would get through considering how heavily they avoid arcane themes with paladin.
I honestly don't know exactly how I would work it into Fighter, but I like that Fighter has a lot less baggage built into it unlike Paladin. Maybe use Battle Master as a "template" and use the "Element" dice that deal extra damage and add an temporary effect such a buff, debuff or damage over time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Strong agree on this one: a character’s personality is so much more important than a backstory, especially when the latter hampers their engagement with the other players or main story because they’re so focused on their own plot. But this is more of a “culture” thing that can’t really be fixed by the rulebooks, unfortunately.
I feel the same way about races: I like that you can sometimes play a “special” race like Goblin or, I don’t know, Rabbitfolk. But I also like it when most characters are still “classic” races: elves, dwarves, halflings, and orcs (one of my players really likes orcs, so they’re savage but not evil in my worlds). Again, this is a “game culture” thing, though, and I’ve never really had issues with aaracokra firbolg locathah pixie parties in my groups.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Redesign the mechanics so that combat isn't so heavily weighed in favor of the players.
Beef up the boss monsters so that they are able to go toe to toe with a group of adventurers without having to always rely on minions. It's really getting old at this point.
Increase the cost and rarity of basic healing potions. Being available everywhere like a Coke machine is ridiculous.
Eliminate the death savings throws. Drop to zero hp? You're character is dead. Deal with it, and roll up another character.
Stop encouraging players to spend so much time on their character's backstory. The DM can't use everyone's backstory in a campaign anyway, and it will make it easier to let go, should the player's character die.
Stop calling them races in the sourcebooks. They are different species.
Nerf the Paladin and the Rogue. Both classes are OP.
The first few are something Wotc thinks they should never ever do again so have fun pushing that.
They aren't really the game does so little to push backstory in text or mechanics thats mostly a game culture thing.This part is simply wrong if your in a module or otherwise get some extra time.
these last two I agree with.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Cheap and convenient potions exist to allow groups without solid healers to do their thing. It's not exactly hard to increase the rarity yourself, but I don't see an issue with it as is.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Opinions for what I want to see for 6E:
- I'm not too much of a fan of the official lore being shoved into the player's handbook and stuff. In the monster books I don't find it problematic, but I think it was done way too much in the player's handbook. I'd personally like to see that lore put into another book which comes out with the core main 3 rulebooks of 6E.
- I hope for some actual depth to pure martial classes without specific subclasses like the amazing battlemaster. I get that some people just like to roll a D20 and roll a damage dice (like 1 of my players) so I hope for some optional simplicity. Like for example, all martial classes could have superiority dice, but there could be options for maneuvers that could just flat out change numbers to make it nicer for them.
- I want stuff like action economy, a guide on how to be a good DM and Player, as well as a chapter on session 0 in the first rulebooks released.
- In terms of races, I think the ones in the books are currently fine, although I do worry it's getting a little out of hand with stuff like the rabbitfolk and some of the other stuff in recent UA. I think there is a threshold where things should be left to be homebrewed and not made official races. My opinion about races is that if you walk into a town as that race, and no one knows what race you are, and gives you weird looks, then I think that race should be left for homebrew and not official content. You can still get glares or odd looks in my scenario and that race will be fine to be officially added, like dragonborns or tieflings, but I think that educated people should reasonably know what you at least are.I also think races should be renamed species in D&D. Have no problem with a crazy race, just I don't want to start having to ban official content like crazy to keep my world in it's canon. I love homebrew, and I think some things should be left for homebrew and not official content. I also think ability scores in terms of races should be changed up so that races don't give ability increases as there would be no need for weird variant rules or official rules to exist for ability score swapping.
- I think 6E should be as simplistic/complex as 5e. Not any more simplistic, but not any more complex. Maybe a bit more complex in terms of martial classes as those as said earlier I think need some changes. The simplicity of 5e allows for an easy learning curve and less book looking for rules, but if it was less complex then things would get too vague, and too things would have to be decided by DM rulings.
I've heard on this thread that death saves should be ditched and death to be made much more likely. I personally like the death save system as it acts as a safety net for DMs who accidentally make a brutal encounter that they didn't want to be this brutal as well as it makes players feel like they didn't just get purposefully murdered by the DM. I just think that it needs to be harder to stabilize/heal a fallen party member without turning healers into just healbots. Maybe if you succeed on 3 death saves you are instead stabilized and not revived at 1 hit point, and you use healing spells to have party members succeed on 2 death saves (seems balanced). If you get healed when stabilized you are back up. This way, death can more easily happen and can't just be prevented by one healer boi. In terms of stabilizing, it only honestly needs to be a bit harder to do to be balanced. Like stabilizing could give a successful death save, and someone who reaches 2 death saves or more, via a stabilize is stabilized. I think giving out exhaustion per failed death save, or per every time you are reduced to 0 hit points is a good way to keep things in terms of death saves challenging. I think removing death saves would just make this game into dark souls unless the DM is careful. I have nothing against Dark Souls gritty hard games, but not everyone wants it.
There are two people in this thread who have post here with the sole intent of critique the ideas of other people, but have not provided any ideas of their own.
So, if you think you're so smart, come up with your own ideas, and present them here.
I agree on most of those points. However, getting three successes does not bring you to one hitpoint. It stabilizes you. I'd imagine you meant rolling a twenty, because that does bring you to 1 hitpoint.
This isn't actually a signature, just something I copy and paste onto the bottom of all my posts. Or is it? Yep, it is. Or is it..? I’m a hobbit, and the master cranial imploder of the "Oops, I Accidently Destroyed Someone's Brain" cult. Extended sig. I'm actually in Limbo, it says I'm in Mechanus because that's where I get my WiFi from. Please don't tell the modrons, they're still angry from the 'Spawning Stone' fiasco.
No connection to Dragonslayer8 other than knowing them in real life.
Just so you are aware, this comes across as "I want D&D to be played my way, and only my way. I want all options which are not my way removing and banning from ever being played, or even talked about, because only my way is right". This is particularly so with the first 2 statements.
For myself, I would love to see a stripped down, mechanics-only ruleset without lore, as described by the OP. So much of the rules is lore-based to a greater or lesser degree, and it's fairly difficult to use the rules without any of the lore because of that.
I would also like the rules for Martial characters to be spiced up. You shouldn't need to play a caster, or homebrew/improvise actions, to have a decent variety of options in combat.
Agreed, I think that people should be able to improvise their own maneuvers in combat without having to be a particular subclass. It needn't be a whole table of them either, it could just be a generic maneuver that the player can flavor as they wish.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As the question is specifically "what do you want to see in D&D 5e", I will try to restrict my notions to things I think could be reasonably done in 5e.
1.) An Olcadan's Manual of Arms or similar book that expands martial combat. Martial combat being so incredibly lackluster is probably my largest single gripe in 5e. All martial classes should have access to Superiority and Maneuvers, not just one subclass of the fighter. If you're trained enough in martial combat to have a signature combat style (the "Fighting Style" feature of fighters, rangers, paladins, and blood hunters), you're trained enough to know maneuvers. All fighting styles could have their own inherent maneuver you can perform with that style, and the martial classes could select additional maneuvers similarly to the Battle Master, if to a lesser degree. The Battle Master could be the subclass for doubling down on Superiority, or it could simply be something else since it's no longer the only way to gain meaningful access to Superiority.
Frankly, the Superiority/Maneuver system is a fantastic chassis to hang martial abilities on. Each (martial) weapon could have its own special maneuver those proficient with it (and who have access to Superiority) can employ to help set martial weapons apart and make them valuable. Many of the game's overpowered combat feats could be reworked into Maneuvers that inherently limit access to them, balancing out the Turbo Mega Cheese that comes from certain feat combinations. Certain classes, subclasses, or even feats could add maneuvers to a character's available pool to choose from the same way Warlock patrons add spells to your spell list, to set those classes apart and better define their combat styles. The sky's the limit.
And for tables that don't want the "unnecessary" complexity? Just ditch the book, or favor the barbarian as a weapon-y "martial" class that doesn't bother with superiority and instead just hits stuff harder.
2.) More spells that are not available on the general spell lists. It would be awesome if there was a set of spells in the DMG or a DM-aimed follow-up book that were built on different rules or did different things than general-access player spells that were considered "Special" spells, DM-Only spells, or spells you had to find instead of just getting for free when leveling up. The Dunamancy spells in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount are a great start, but it would be super cool if there were spells that could break the rules of the spellcasting system...that players couldn't take unless the DM told them they could. Artifacts of lost cultures, aberrations in the magical equations of reality, the culmination of an ancient spellcaster's life's work - stuff the DM could use as the basis for Lost Magic. Yes, the DM can just invent these sorts of things, but a foundational list of example Lost Magics would be a really cool tool to have. As would a way for DDB to implement "Lost Magic" in a way other than jank-ass feat workarounds, but eh.
...most everything else I can think of off the top of my head that I want are more things DDB can't/won't implement than things Wizards would need to bother with. I'd like much stronger rules for customizing the benefits/durations of long and short rests, for example - my table really wanted to use the DMG's Slow Natural Healing rule for one of our games, but DDB makes that extremely finicky and annoying to the point where we had to drop it. I'd love to be able to make long rests less of an immersion-breaking Wolverine Regeneration total reset, but DDB doesn't let me do that because Wizards doesn't let me do that. In a P&P game I could just declare rules like "Slow Natural Healing is in effect, you regain one hit die per long rest instead of half of them, but if you're resting somewhere safe and comfortable, such as a well-appointed inn, that rate accelerates and you regain two Hit Dice and can clear two levels of exhaustion with one rest", but DDB doesn't really give me the option to control what rests do in my games. Which sucks, but isn't really a Wizards problem.
C'est la vie.
Please do not contact or message me.
I like the idea of there being maneuvers tied to Fighting Styles. That would still allow the Battle Master to keep their spot as the "complex" Fighter Subclass, but expand on what most martial classes (and those willing to take the Feat) can do.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
We don't actually use Avrae - we use the DDB character sheets directly. When you click the "Long Rest" button, you get a by-the-book default long rest whether you want one or not. To do anything else you need to reset the sheet manually, which can be a process for higher-level characters. It's an annoyance, but eh.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would like a larger focus on "play your way and other's will play theirs".
Oh wait. That's already in there. I guess there's no stopping the "my way is the right way" arguments. :(
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I admit that sharing the Battlemaster Maneuvers around might not be such a bad idea. I've been against it, but having done more study of the subclass I begin to see the point. I kind of think the Feat takes care of it well enough, but it is worth considering. Having a set of maneuvers for each Fighting Style would be grand. I'm uncertain about extending it to individual weapons, though possibly categories of weapons would work. It's getting a little far into the Crunch Zone for each weapon to have a maneuver.
More spells is kind of iffy. The moment you publish a list of new "special" spells for player characters they stop being special. Everyone will demand they be used, kind of like how Feats are an "optional" rule, and yet imagine the outcry if you actually told players they couldn't use them. They are pretty nearly hardwired into the core now. I am reminded of how the 2nd Edition "splat books" and the 3rd Edition Prestige Classes killed those Editions with power creep and rules bloat and the expectation that things presented as optional like the splat books, or just as examples, like the early Prestige Classes, became mandatory in the eyes of the player base. DM and Monster Only spells stop being so once published.
I'm largely happy with D&D as is, but I'd love that Arms & Equipment Guide and a Harsh Conditions Survival Guide. I'm hoping to see Planescape and Spelljammer someday.
<Insert clever signature here>
I'll answer with my usual response to this type of thread...
More classes. Specifically a swordmage and warlord. Warlord because we have barely any martials, let alone a dedicated support martial. Swordmage because a spell striking elemental/arcane type class is a role not yet filled is a satisfying manner.
(an elemental paladin subclass would work as a substitute, but even time I mention that I get jumped on by people saying it doesn't fit the paladin theme.)
Paladin would be the easiest martial class to do an elemental themed subclass for. Swapping damage type from Radiant to Fire, Cold etc for smites and tossing in some other bits. I would prefer it as a Fighter subclass, but I can see how Paladin could work.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you can justify the elemental paladin thematically, it could be awesome. I’d call it the Oath of Balance, handling all the universe’s primal forces and keeping the balance between them. Think Jedi philosophy. “Darkness, light, peace, violence, life, death that feeds new life, and between it all a force. And inside me, that same force.” That fits Paladins and is a thematic gap that could use filling.
But knowing WotC, they’ll probably just make it a boring “Oath of the Elements” where the tenets are “likes elements” and “chills with genies.”
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, Tashas's Cauldron of Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Pity that the paladin chassis has smite as a class feature rather than subclass. Something like a necrotic smite would already suit many peoples idea of an oathbreaker. How would you work it as a fighter subclass?
I like the classes which allow you to pick an elemental at the start, such as draconic sorcerer or genielock.
Yeah I think calling it something like oath of balance would mesh with the other subclass themes better. Though I doubt even that would get through considering how heavily they avoid arcane themes with paladin.
I honestly don't know exactly how I would work it into Fighter, but I like that Fighter has a lot less baggage built into it unlike Paladin. Maybe use Battle Master as a "template" and use the "Element" dice that deal extra damage and add an temporary effect such a buff, debuff or damage over time.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master