Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Another thing I would change is to alter a Warlock's Mystic Arcanum's spells into the equivalent of a spell slot, with limitations.

Say Mr. 12th level Warlock wants to upcast Summon Greater Demon. He could use the 6th level spell slot, but whatever Mystic Arcanum spell he learned at 11th level is lost until a long rest is competed. This would allow Warlocks to cast spells that scream "Upcast Me!", while incurring a real penalty for that privilege. If the Warlock was say 13th level, and wanted to upcast his 11th level Mystic Arcanum spell to a 7th level spell slot, both the 6th level spell slot, and the 7th level spell slot, would be used.

I agree with this concept, but not sure about the execution. Warlocks should be able to use their mystic arcanum to upcast, but that method seems too taxing for my tastes. Warlocks already have so few resources to cast non-cantrips that I would prefer not expending two resources at once. 

I don't think that it is possible to get rid of powergaming  without ruining D&D (I also think some light optimization can be fun). Powergaming exists when choices exist. Powergaming is making choices that work better for one character over another, so unless the choices are perfectly balanced, than there will be an "optimal" path. The only way to get rid of this is to get rid of choices entirely, which I have a feeling a lot of people would dislike. 

Also, why is powergaming so bad? There is a strange stigma surrounding it in the D&D culture. For example, if you were to play tactically during combat, utilize terrain, and synergize with your party, most people think that is skilled playing. Yet when someone makes choices for their benefit in character creation, then that is powergaming and evil. If someone builds a hyper minmaxed character that totally out shines the party, I understand why that would be frustrating. But that is probably not the majority of optimizers goal. 

Quote from JoeltheWalrus >>

I don't think that it is possible to get rid of powergaming  without ruining D&D (I also think some light optimization can be fun). Powergaming exists when choices exist. Powergaming is making choices that work better for one character over another, so unless the choices are perfectly balanced, than there will be an "optimal" path. The only way to get rid of this is to get rid of choices entirely, which I have a feeling a lot of people would dislike. 

Also, why is powergaming so bad? There is a strange stigma surrounding it in the D&D culture. For example, if you were to play tactically during combat, utilize terrain, and synergize with your party, most people think that is skilled playing. Yet when someone makes choices for their benefit in character creation, then that is powergaming and evil. If someone builds a hyper minmaxed character that totally out shines the party, I understand why that would be frustrating. But that is probably not the majority of optimizers goal. 

It seems to be mostly the players who've been playing the game longer than the younger folks who have such a burning hatred of powergaming. I don't know exactly why this is, because I never played any of the previous editions, but I have heard that certain previous editions there were a ton of unbalanced options where you could practically become a god with the right combinations. I suspect that this, combined with a few bad experiences with powergaming jerks has caused them to react to this style of play in a way that can only be accurately described as "irrationally hostile."

A notion it has only just now occurred to me that that "I Hate Powergaming" crowd may want to keep in mind.  Especially Lyxen.  I hate that this thread keeps demanding what few posts I'm allowed to make, but here I am.  Ugh...

"Now, it is strange that you are still asking that question after all this time, as it's really simple. When you are playing tactically in combat, you are playing in the world, with the other characters and with the DM, and this involves at least some story/roleplaying element. You are not selfishly, in your corner, trying to squeeze out all the technical capabilities of the game and twisting the RAW as much as you can to be better than the others, to outshine them and hog the spotlight, not to mention being derisive of the choices of more casual players and despising them for not being as good a player as you are."
~Lyxen

Unfortunately Lyxen, you are badly mistaken.  What you are doing is equating 'The Rules' to a bothersome gate one has to get past in order to play The Real Game.  That someone maximizing their character's capabilities before play is doing so strictly and solely so they can Hog The Spotlight and be a turdbaby nobody likes.  This is not only drastically incorrect, it's actively harmful to your understanding of Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Powergaming Munchkin ******canoes.

What many 'optimizers' are doing is not trying to Beat Their Buddies.  'The Rules' are not an annoying contrivance one has to deal with to get to The Real Game.  'The Rules' are the physics of the game world.  'The Rules' are how the world works.  'The Rules' describe how a character works and how their actions interact with the world.  Optimizers understand that and thus make choices to try and best meet those in-world physics.  That's why I say that optimization (within sane bounds) represents the character training effectively in their specialization - they are aligning their abilities with the game's physics exactly the same way a real-world soldier aligns their own abilities with actual physics.

Telling someone they're perfectly allowed to play tactically and well within the game, but that if they try and prepare themselves to do exactly that before the game they're an Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Powergaming Munchkin ******canoe is, perhaps, an issue?  Don't get mad at your players for adapting their characters to fit the physics of the world they're in.  We all do the same thing in real life every day, unless you tell people IRL that they're horrible awful people who hate fun and should just drown themselves in a bathtub for paying more attention to their fitness, health, and self-improvement than the average person does. 

In which case, stop it.

Guys......I am an optimizer. I am also probably among the most invested in rping in my whole group. You can be both. I don't try to break the game, but I enjoy playing powerful characters. The same way that one in my group plays underpowered characters. And one hasn't read the rules, but that is neither here nor there. In most cases those who put more time into developing their character are gonna be more invested in RPing 

You can be a 'munchkin' and and a great 'RPer' at the same time. I would say change my mind, but it is a fact.

we are getting off topic, and I don't want another thread locked pls.

Okay, maybe time to return back to answering the question of the thread (I'm sure most of us have broken the Rule of One already, so I'm going to pretend like it doesn't exist from now on). 

So, some have mentioned earlier in the thread that the ability scores need a bit of rebalancing. I agree with this, but don't want to turn this thread into a discussion on why Intelligence and Strength suck, so I will just go ahead and assume that all of you agree with that, but explain things just a bit. Strength, Constitution, and Intelligence are objectively worse ability scores than Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Strength is useful, but Dexterity is much more useful than it in more cases than not. It's used for initiative, armor class, more skills, more common and important saving throws, is a prerequisite to multiclass into more viable classes for multiclass dips than the strength based ones, practically everyone needs it and those who don't really want it, it can be used for both melee and ranged combat, and has too many uses for me to list. Dexterity is clearly superior to Strength, and this needs to change in the next edition (5.5e/6e). Here are some suggestions for how to rebalance it:

• Take away its importance for Initiative. In the new edition of D&D, I would recommend allowing a character to use their Dexterity, Intelligence, or Wisdom modifier for their initiative bonus. Dexterity makes sense to be used for initiative, as it shows how quickly you can react in combat, but the other two ability scores can fit the theme of good initiative as well. Intelligence would emulate an intelligent battle strategist analyzing the battlefield and having their mind in a constant mental state of combat-preparedness. Wisdom to show their constant awareness of their surroundings and ability to go before other creatures. This won't help Strength be better as much as it will make Dexterity be a bit less needed. 
• Nerf ranged weapons and boost melee combat. Ranged combat already has the benefit of being away from all the action, and the majority of monsters are stronger at melee combat than ranged. This makes an imbalance. I recommend either decreasing the damage dice of most ranged weapons by one size, and/or increasing the damage dice of melee combat one size. For example: Greatswords/Mauls do 2d8 damage, Glaives/Halberds do 1d12, Greataxes/Lances do 1d12+proficiency bonus or something like that. Melee combatants should get an automatic Parry reaction to prevent damage. Ranged Combatants should gain other disadvantages of attacking at range. Both should be equal. Maybe even give an AC boost to melee combatants, or two different armor classes, one for ranged attacks and another for melee. There could be different mechanics to balance these styles of combat as well. These boosts to melee combat could also apply to Finesse Weapons, but this change would still help balance out STR and DEX a bit.
• Make more Strength based skills. Athletics is for grappling and other athletic actions. There could be a "Lift" skill that lets you temporarily lift twice your carrying capacity for an amount of time equal to your Constitution modifier. Other skills that are based on Strength could help keep it on par with Dexterity.
• Make different types of shields that require certain strength to use. A small shield could be used by anyone and just give a +1 bonus to AC. A medium shield could be used by those with Strength of 16 or higher and give a +2 bonus to AC and possibly half-cover. A large/tower shield would require a strength of 18 or higher and give a +3 bonus to AC and give three-quarters cover. This is just a rough draft idea to help balance out strength and dexterity a bit, and the numbers would probably be different if they did something like this, but you get the idea. 
• Make heavy armor better. Dexterity is too useful when it comes to Armor Class, which is why I have the suggestion above, but that won't fix it. Not having high enough strength while wearing heavy armor will make attacks against you be made at advantage, or there could be some other extreme nerf to wearing heavy armor without high enough Strength. There could also be a benefit to wearing heavy armor, such as effects that would move you/knock you prone are halved/made at disadvantage. 
• Increase the amount of ways you can fight in combat. The Grappler feat (or an equivalent of it) could be automatically given to everyone. There could be different positioning tactics to increase melee damage (like the coup de grace, stacked flanking, and so on). This could just make melee combat a bit more interesting and less weapon-spamming, balancing it a bit with Spellcasting. 

That is the gist of what I would change to make Strength be more on par with Dexterity. Both would be effective ways of play, and neither ability score would be clearly better than the other. Now onto Intelligence. 

So, the main problem with Intelligence is that it is very uncommonly used in 5e. Only Wizards, Artificers, Arcane Tricksters, and Eldritch Knights care about having it, and the latter two care far less about it than their classes' main stats. Additionally, there are not many useful mechanics that everyone has access to that are dependent on it. Just compare it to Charisma. Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks at least partially depend on having good Charisma, almost everyone else wants it for Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation. The only skill that is based on Intelligence that is not dependent on your character's knowledge of lore is Investigation, which is outdone by Perception. The other skills are dependent on lore and only provide any game influencing knowledge about once a campaign each. These are my recommendations to fix Intelligence: 

• Make more classes and subclasses need it. The way to get stop people from multiclassing into Hexblade-Sorcadins is to give some equally good options Intelligence based characters. They could do this by adding more classes/subclasses that need it (Psionics, a Warlord class, an Arcane-Gish class, Runecasting, Intelligence-Sneak Attacking Rogues), 
• They could possibly change Warlocks to Intelligence, but I would personally keep them as Charisma (especially with other changes I'm going to recommend). I think that Charisma fits them better, as they do have to create pacts and barter with otherworldly powers. 
• Allow characters to start with more skills/tools/languages/weapon proficiencies equal to their Intelligence modifier. This would just boost the stat and make it a lot more valuable. 
• They could add more Intelligence based skills and have the current Intelligence based skills be more useful. There could be a skill that lets you analyze an weapon/object/contraption and try and figure out how it works. For example, they could walk up to a cannon, take this action, and figure out how to use it if they roll high enough. Or, Arcana could be used to give you some damage reduction to spells that you are familiar enough with. Investigation could be made to be more distinct from Perception and more useful. There are plenty of other additions/tweaking they could to with the Intelligence skills to make them worth taking.
• Make intelligence saving throws more common and more important. One of the reasons why a barbarian is automatically dead/mind controlled if the party comes across an Intellect Devourer or Mind Flayer is because they automatically dump Intelligence. They automatically dump Intelligence because they don't have any reason to take it. If Intelligence saving throws are more common and useful, and the ability score did more than it currently does, everyone would be inclined to take it. 

Those are some of the recommendations I have for balancing Intelligence out a bit. Just like the imbalance between Strength and Dexterity, the imbalance between Intelligence and Charisma (and Wisdom a bit) can be fixed by making the underpowered ability scores more useful and prevalent, as well as nerfing the overpowered ability scores a bit. Now onto the last ability score, Constitution. 

Constitution is the weird one. It is not a bad ability score, but it is certainly not a balanced one, either. Its role in 5e is a bit ambiguous, and is strange for a few reasons. Firstly, like Dexterity, everyone wants Constitution, and for a similar reason. Having a high Constitution is how you get higher hit points, and literally everyone wants high hit points. While there are ways to have high AC without super high Dexterity (Loxodon, Heavy Armor, Medium Armor with decent DEX), there are practically no ways of adding a different agility score to your hit points, which is a bit strange due to 5e's definition of hit points as representing a combination of "physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." If hit points involve mental durability, the will to live, and luck, why in the Nine Hells is Constitution the only ability score that can be added to it? Luck sounds like Dexterity and Charisma to me, mental durability and the will to live sound like Intelligence and Wisdom to me, and physical durability sounds like Strength and Constitution. That covers all of the ability scores, so why is it only Constitution that's added? I'm guessing it was carried over from previous editions and is a matter of tradition, but either way it should change. Due to the fact that everyone has to have it, that creates an imbalance between it and every other ability score. This makes Constitution too good/useful to be used as the main stat of a class, leaving players in a weird kind of limbo of trying to determine if they really need to increase their Constitution. Here is how I would fix this ability score:

• First and most importantly, sever its ties to hit points. You can still add your Constitution modifier to your hit points, but only if you are a certain class. When a class would add their Constitution modifier to their hit points that they regain or receive when they level up, they instead can choose any ability score associated with their class to add their ability score modifier in place of their Constitution modifier, as shown below. This would let 5e's definition of hit points actually make some strange kind of sense, where a Rogue's hit points are their agility and luck to dodge out of the path of a blade that would slit their throat and a Barbarian's hit points are literally their physical health and might, and so on. 
  • Artificers add Constitution and Intelligence.
  • Barbarians add Strength and Constitution.
  • Bards add Charisma and Dexterity.
  • Clerics add Wisdom and Charisma/Constitution.
  • Druids add Wisdom and Intelligence/Constitution.
  • Fighters add Strength/Dexterity and Constitution.
  • Monks add Wisdom and Dexterity.
  • Paladins add Constitution/Charisma and Strength.
  • Rangers add Strength/Dexterity and Wisdom.
  • Rogues add Dexterity and Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma.
  • Sorcerers add Constitution and Charisma.
  • Warlocks add Charisma and Dexterity.
  • Wizards add Intelligence and Wisdom/Dexterity.
• Make Sorcerers use Constitution as their spellcasting ability. If their magic is innate and comes from their inherent arcane nature, they get proficiency with Constitution saving throws already, and there's a subclass named after your "Bloodline," they should not be Charisma based, they should be Constitution based. 
• Add more classes/subclasses that use Constitution for features (Blood Hunters, Long Death Monks, Oathbreaker Paladins, a barbarian subclass, Health Clerics, etc).  
• Add a skill called Endurance that is Constitution based. When swimming long distances, you have to make an athletics and endurance check to see how fast and how long you can swim. If lifting an object above your carrying capacity, you can roll Endurance to see how long you can hold it up. Endurance would be used for any other actions that require your to maintain a difficult task involving your health and tolerance of pain. 
• Make Concentration more common. Rage is concentration, rogue abilities, fighters will get fighting tactics that are concentration, Wild Shape could be concentration, certain Channel Divinities could be Concentration, etc. 
• For PCs, make an "Exhaustion Buffer" that lets you take an amount of Exhaustion equal to your Constitution modifier with no negative effects, and any additional exhaustion you take afterwards gives you harmful effects based on the Exhaustion table, starting at the first effect and continuing on as normal when taking even more exhaustion. At the end of a long rest, a character automatically loses one exhaustion and can make an Endurance check to get rid of an additional exhaustion. This would allow for both Exhaustion and Constitution to have more uses in the game. 
• Make Death Saving Throws be Constitution based. This would make it so even though they don't necessarily need Con for their HP, it is still important for their survival. 

So, that's what I've got for rebalancing the ability scores. What do you think? Thoughts? Maybe this can help us discuss a bit less of a contentious topic. 

I think, as with the debate between rolling for stats vs using a point system vs standard array for character creation, that the discussion on powergaming/min-maxing should be taken to another thread at this point.

I know I technically already gave my answer for the one thing I would change, but I wanted to expand on it a little bit. While I understand that there is an reasonable concern for book bloat, I would like some more books that can be used to help expand the lore of different creatures types and possibly even general guides as to how different creature types can be played across different settings. 

For example, lets use dragons as they are my favorite creatures in D&D and in fantasy. I would like a nice, meaty supplement book for Dragons that give all manner of stuff a DM could use. Different ideas for how dragons behave and are seen in different worlds, how dragons can interact with various societies and with PCs, expansion of the dragon Pantheon, new dragon types to play around with, ways to augment dragons to make encounters with them more interesting and unique, PC sub-classes specifically themed around dragons, dragon themed magical items and cool lair traps. The list goes on. Now imagine that being done for Aberrations, Celestials, Fiends, and the other creature types. I feel like this could be a great tool for DMs that want to have campaigns featuring different creature types and their lore but might find the current content a bit lacking. 

I might be in the minority of people who would love these sorts of supplement books and Wizards might be hesitant to expend the resources on said books, but I personally think its worth it to those who want more content like this. 

Okay, finally got that post out. That took longer than I thought it would (it's very long, sorry about that. It has more than 2100 words). Good luck reading it!

Lol I added the limit of one thing to change to stop myself going on a long rant about the million things I'd change about 5e.

Looks like others have many of the same feelings!

Probs best to make a separate "what changes for 5.5e/6e do you want" thread if we're going no holds barred for ripping 5e to shreds.

What I want to change in 5e is some real-world ability to bend time and space just to be able to play. Think Hasbro can do it?

@third_sundering

I like your rant, it was interesting, but I disagree with the HP part. I play dex paladins a LOT, so I would have to boost str to get high HP? I think Con should be for everyone, otherwise it is useless. What you are suggesting will score lock every single class more than they are already

Quote from GoodBovine >>

@third_sundering

I like your rant, it was interesting, but I disagree with the HP part. I play dex paladins a LOT, so I would have to boost str to get high HP? I think Con should be for everyone, otherwise it is useless. What you are suggesting will score lock every single class more than they are already

Great, and thanks for your comments. I will support some of my post a bit here and later on, if that's okay with you. 

First, I can see the issue with Dex Paladins. I listed it as Con/Cha and Str. That is just my first recommendation, and that could be switched to Dex/Str and Cha. It's a first draft, and is highly unlikely this would make its way into the official rules, so I was mainly just saying what I thought would fit each class at a first glance without much thought. 

Second, if the changes I suggested became official, Con would be just as useful as any other ability score. Currently it is paradoxically both more and less useful than every other ability score, which causes an imbalance in the scores. In a ruleset that makes use of these features, a paladin would be just as inclined to take Constitution as they would to take Intelligence or Wisdom. Every ability score should be useful to everyone, so you actually have to make touch decisions when designing a character instead of deciding "I'll just dump Intelligence because it is useless to me." Ideally, all the ability scores would be of use to everyone, instead of the current system where everyone wants Dexterity, Charisma, and Constitution. 

Third, yes it would cause you to want to have higher ability scores in the stats your class is supposed to be good at. Is that a problem? I don't think it's an issue to ask a Wizard to have high Intelligence and to reward them when they have higher Intelligence. 

Uh Third, if you would notice, the title is if you could change one thing, emphasis on one. You had like eleventeen things on that post.

Quote from Daryll_Goodfellow_King_Of_Random >>

Uh Third, if you would notice, the title is if you could change one thing, emphasis on one. You had like eleventeen things on that post.

 To be fair, they is not the only person to say more then one thing they want changed. There is so many things that make up this game, its hard to only focus on one. 

Quote from Daryll_Goodfellow_King_Of_Random >>

Uh Third, if you would notice, the title is if you could change one thing, emphasis on one. You had like eleventeen things on that post.

I am aware of that. A lot of others have, as well. That's my last one for awhile, besides supporting it. If the Original Poster requests, I will stop listing new things. (I also think that it's better to change the topic from its previous direction to this, as it's less hostile.)

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Another thing I would change is to alter a Warlock's Mystic Arcanum's spells into the equivalent of a spell slot, with limitations.

Say Mr. 12th level Warlock wants to upcast Summon Greater Demon. He could use the 6th level spell slot, but whatever Mystic Arcanum spell he learned at 11th level is lost until a long rest is competed. This would allow Warlocks to cast spells that scream "Upcast Me!", while incurring a real penalty for that privilege. If the Warlock was say 13th level, and wanted to upcast his 11th level Mystic Arcanum spell to a 7th level spell slot, both the 6th level spell slot, and the 7th level spell slot, would be used.

I agree with this concept, but not sure about the execution. Warlocks should be able to use their mystic arcanum to upcast, but that method seems too taxing for my tastes. Warlocks already have so few resources to cast non-cantrips that I would prefer not expending two resources at once. 

 How would you change the mechanic so it would not be so onerous when a Warlock upcast a spell beyond 5th level?

I'm not sure. I don't think it would be broken to just have it take the higher level slot. If there did need to be some other tax on it, you could make it so they can't cast leveled spells on their next turn, give disadvantage, limit it to once a day, or some other limiting factor that doesn't take two of your limited casting resources. 

I for one hope monk can get a secondary pool of resources like every other martial. 

I would give them something based on WIS mod or in the case of 4 elements and shadow have them get Pact Slots but similar to Arcane Trickster and Eldtrich Knight where they end up being a 1/3rd caster.

The fact they have to use ki makes monk feel limited now.

I don't think that just removing point buy is a good idea personally. Having 4d6 drop lowest as default is fine, but point buy should always remain at least as a variant rule for people who like fair starts.

I think official variant rules are very important for people to tweak the game to their own liking in a consistent way. For example the short rest refresh limited cantrip slots could be another variant rule, with the current cantrip system being the default.

Hot take: if the guidelines and DM's didn't make Full Plate like some holy grail that shouldn't ever be given to the player before level 10, we'd have much fewer dex based paladins and fighters.