At this point I really wish there was an official Advanced version of 5e that added a little more complexity and crunch as an added layer over the "Basic" 5e framework. I don't want to have several +/- modifiers, but I am tired of people being afraid of learning a new rule or mechanic from time to time.
At this point I really wish there was an official Advanced version of 5e that added a little more complexity and crunch as an added layer over the "Basic" 5e framework. I don't want to have several +/- modifiers, but I am tired of people being afraid of learning a new rule or mechanic from time to time.
Shhhhh 🤫 That’s tantamount to sedition around here.
No. Just, no. If that were to be brought back, it would not be fair.
Back then, if you rolled that you got less than the equivalent of the Magic Initiate feat. There really was a special class called the Psionicist. The complete Psionics handbook came out in 1e and was still compatible for 2e. It just required you to roll that to make the class eligible. But most DMs I knew handwaved a lot of that.
Yes, I have been told that before (I think by you?). I don't care if it would be less than a feat that they get for free, IMO, that's like saying that everyone gets a free level in sorcerer if they roll above 95% upon character creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At this point I really wish there was an official Advanced version of 5e that added a little more complexity and crunch as an added layer over the "Basic" 5e framework. I don't want to have several +/- modifiers, but I am tired of people being afraid of learning a new rule or mechanic from time to time.
Yes, this 100%. If you haven't, you might want to take a look at ENworld's Advanced 5e system they're developing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
No. Just, no. If that were to be brought back, it would not be fair.
Back then, if you rolled that you got less than the equivalent of the Magic Initiate feat. There really was a special class called the Psionicist. The complete Psionics handbook came out in 1e and was still compatible for 2e. It just required you to roll that to make the class eligible. But most DMs I knew handwaved a lot of that.
Yes, I have been told that before (I think by you?). I don't care if it would be less than a feat that they get for free, IMO, that's like saying that everyone gets a free level in sorcerer if they roll above 95% upon character creation.
Nahh, more like everybody gets a 1ce/LR 1st level spell from the sorcerer list if they roll above 95%. But you could only play a Sorcerer if you rolled it first.
1) A real skills (non-weapon proficiency) system and not this ambiguous basic thing that feels like they tacked it on at the end of development.
2) Get rid of the 'sleep it off' mechanic that allows you to heal everything that has occurred to your character by simply hitting the bedroll for 8 hours. It is an easy fix at the table, but still this breaks immersion so much for RAW.
3) Allow spells to have limited scalability automatically instead of up casting. It would incentivize more creativity with spells through out the levels.
4) Concentration should be tied to your spell casting stat not constitution. Too many spells require concentration.
5) Make D&D modular like they originally promised with regards to game mechanics. This would help those who want a more 'advanced' and crunchy version at their table.
2) Get rid of the 'sleep it off' mechanic that allows you to heal everything that has occurred to your character by simply hitting the bedroll for 8 hours. It is an easy fix at the table, but still this breaks immersion so much for RAW.
This shows a real lack of understanding of what Hit Points are. Seeing that you fight as well as 1hp out of 150 as if you were at full should tell you that damage is not wounds. If you are playing it as deep wounds that need to heal, you are doing it wrond compared to every single edition of D&D
As long as it's not an attack with a secondary effect ;-)
I'm not even going to try to describe an attack with poison coated dagger as "near miss" if hit requires them to make a Con save. They'd laugh me out of the room. But describing it as barely enough to deliver the poison should be fine.
Dial the dismissal back a bit, Lyxen. Skor's got good points.
5e's skill system sucks. No bones about it - 5e's skill system sucks. Not necessarily because of its over-simplicity (though that definitely doesn't help), but because of its rigidity. 5e has, effectively, nineteen skills that matter - Thieves' Tools, and the eighteen core skills. No DM can ever get rid of or modify any of those core skills - they're baked into the character sheet, hard-coded into the game. A DM wants to merge Arcana and Religion into Occultism for a game where that makes more sense? NOOOOPE - 5e says no, can't modify skills like that, can't be having it, nuh-uh, nope, nein, stoppit. A DM wants to add a Mechanics skill to cover the application of tinkering, mechanical knowledge, and early engineering for a steampunk-y game? NOOOOPE - 5e says no, there ain't no room on no sheet for no new skills, get that idea outta yer hedd right nao, boi, did yew think yew were in charge o'this 'ere game?!
There was a modified 5e sheet I saw recently where the 'Skills' bar was omitted. Instead, there was simply a box for 'Proficiency Bonus' above fifteen to twenty empty lines where players could write in the things they were proficient in. It was beautiful. In one perfect stroke, the obnoxious hard-coded coupling between 'Skill' and 'Ability Score' was broken, the ultra-rigid fixed list of skill proficiencies was eliminated, and the DM was given back control of her game. You could gain proficiency in whatever the figgety-**** you could convince the DM you were proficient in, and that proficiency applied across ability scores. Tools and generic skills were given equal weight. It was gorgeous. I would legit pay money for the option to switch my DDB sheets to the same format, eliminate fixed skills and add a field for write-ins. Alas, Wizards hates both players and roleplaying so it'll never happen.
As for "hit points represent plot armor, not actual damage", that's not universal and you know it. The Constitution save thing is one example. Any touch spell/ability is another. More tables run HP as a 'this is how much blood is left in your body' meter than as a Plot Armor meter. In either case, restocking one's entire supply of blood and/or plot armor on a long rest sucks. They have 'gritty' rules in the DMG, but DDB doesn't support them and trying to do that shit manually is a colossal hassle. I know, we tried it in Grave of Saints until everybody just collectively said "**** this" and switched back to the regular rules. It'd make for a more interesting and engaging game for many if recovery after a mollycobbling was more involved than simply having oneself a beauty sleep.
And finally...please stop telling people to stop playing this game if they don't like 5e's oversimplification. Wizards explicitly promised to deliver modular Advanced Rules layers when they released 5e because they KNEW a lot of people were upset over the game being reduced to Narrative Tic-Tac-Toe; all Skor and others are asking for is that promise be fulfilled. Your insistence that people who want more engagement from 5e are all just blithering idiots who can't understand the true spirit of roleplaying and need to move on to systems with more crunch is obnoxious and unhelpful. Like it or not, this is the system we're stuck with. I've done it 'your' way - I played a couple different attempts at a GURPS game over the web, with form-fillable PDFs and a stack of PDF gamebooks to keep track of. Games came apart, and it's almost impossible to convince an entire table of folks to jump ship even when everybody knows and agrees that 5e cut too close to the bone in many places. We homebrew on the regular, but the tools don't support the 'brew. And finally, this whole thread is about what you'd change in 5e. Telling people they're stupid for wanting to change 5e in a thread asking people what they'd change about 5e is not particularly cool, ne?
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
This thread is starting to move away from "If you could change one thing about DnD 5e, what would it be?" and towards the frankly unacceptable "Why your suggestions for D&D are bad"
All are welcome to pose suggestions for improvements for D&D, but if the only contribution to others suggestions is criticism without being constructive, then that will lead to the thread being locked.
Everyone's experiences of D&D are different and there is no singular way to play. Just because you may not think X is an issue, that does not objectively mean X isn't an issue. Respect each others opinions, don't invalidate each other, and most of all, I say this every time
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
To me D&D is a very complicated balance of mechanics that have been a part of the game for decades. The more you change and deviate from the core structure of the game, the more it becomes another game. It is a very thin line and it's location of that line varies from person to person. 4e crossed that line for enough people that WotC had to walk back a little to pull people back in as an example.
probably not a very good answer, but that is how I see it.
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
To me D&D is a very complicated balance of mechanics that have been a part of the game for decades. The more you change and deviate from the core structure of the game, the more it becomes another game. It is a very thin line and it's location of that line varies from person to person. 4e crossed that line for enough people that WotC had to walk back a little to pull people back in as an example.
probably not a very good answer, but that is how I see it.
I see it as: You say what you want to do, DM has you roll a die (preferrably d20) and you tell them the result. Your success is then determined and you can use abilities/skills to potentially help your chances.
Combat is using a lot more of these skills/features to attack and kill/knock out creatures that are iconically DnD (goblins, cubes, owlbear, etc...)
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
Everybody has a different answer, and for most of them it will boil down to "I don't know what it is, but I damn sure know what it isn't."
It's a huge problem with this game, honestly. It has players who've been running it through many editions for multiple decades, and while they generally can't define 'the spirit of D&D' well, they have an aesthetic built up in their heads based on many years of experience and intuition. Any piece of development which breaks that aesthetic evokes immediate hostility and generally means rejection of the product. It's how Sacred Cows are born, and why this game is still so rustic and weird despite having one of the most highly paid, well-supplied and resource-rich design teams in TTRPG history. They can't change things even when they should be changed, because if they change something they piss off all the Old Guard types and lose their playerbase even if it makes for a better game.
Because, despite what many people think, while 5e is indeed simple it is not typically "elegant" simplicity. Some aspects of the game are good design. The Species/Background/Class trifecta is a great idea, even if class over-dominates the trifecta. The Advantage/Disadvantage system is an excellent piece of design. Bounded accuracy is important in a way many grognards cannot really bring themselves to realize. That said, a significantly larger portion of 5e's design is ham-handed kludge that eliminates nuance and depth more than it 'reduces complexity'. Action/Bonus/Move is infinitely inferior to what Paizo built with their three-action system. 5e's skill system is a tacked-on afterthought with no subtlety or nuance in it whatsoever. And for a game which claims to be equal parts Combat, Exploration, and Social gameplay, there are essentially zero provisions in the DMG for handling Exploarion or Social play. 5e is simple, but it's not elegantly simple. It can't be while the IP is hauling around an entire herd of Sacred Cows through the mud like an entire factory's worth of boat anchors dragging back its design.
Maybe some day, now that 5e is introducing a whole flock of people for whom the cows are not nearly so sacred. 5e was mired by the wreckage of D&D past, but there may be some hope for 6e in the future.
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
Everybody has a different answer, and for most of them it will boil down to "I don't know what it is, but I damn sure know what it isn't."
Unusually enough, I agree with Yurei. I like a lot of old school stuff, but I’ll be the first one to tell you that alignment, for example, is a relic and needs to go...or at least become just good/neutral/evil.
As for the spirit of the game...if you ask me, the spirit is a bunch of friends (or, if you’re playing at your game store, soon-to-be friends) sitting around a table rolling dice, telling stories, and having fun. It’s about the vibe and the friendships more than the game itself.
That said, I think it’s important to realize that nostalgia is also part of the fun of D&D. There are other RPG systems that are worlds better in my opinion, but I keep coming back to D&D for the memories. It’s game design doesn’t need to be the sleekest, we have other games for that, it needs to be itself.
Alignment is a fantastic example of sacred cows dragging down design.
There is absolutely room for Alignment in a D&D game...but players should not be the ones deciding it, or even necessarily be aware of which alignment they fall into. "Alignment" should be a section in a non-DMG sourcebook which describes the archetypical D&D cosmology, where Outer Planes correspond to a given alignment and collect the souls of mortals who correspond to that alignment upon their final deaths. That section should lay out for DMs how to use a player's actions to determine which alignment they fall into, and if the campaign is planar in nature it would tell the DM how to account for the effects of alignment in those planes. Traveling to the Nine Hells? If your alignment doesn't match that of the plane, it causes you discomfort or even pain to be there, and the plane will try and warp you until you do fit - if you're even able to enter that plane in the first place. A Chaotic Good champion of freedom and self-mastery trying to chase an enemy into the Hells may not even be able to enter the plane at all without fulfilling some ritual condition, or without suffering a catastrophic shift in their worldview. There could be an entire cool Optional Advanced Rules Layer built around alignment and its impact on planar campaigns for those DMs/gaming groups who really enjoy playing with it, but without that build behind it? Without the planar influences and origins, without that cosmology? Alignment is pointless.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
That goes for far more than just alignment. WotC is too half-‘n-half about too many things.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
That goes for far more than just alignment. WotC is too half-‘n-half about too many things.
100x yes on this one...
If they would just commit to something it would produce a better product. They instead try to catch everyone and it shows in the design. They end up with "Meh" instead of interesting.
Absolutely, Yurei and Sposta. I have always liked the concept of alignment in D&D, but have also felt that 5e's alignment is way too underdeveloped and breaks my suspension of disbelief too much for it to be enjoyable. They should either go all in to an alignment system, giving tables and examples of differently aligned characters and how to determine someone's alignment, or just drop it, as the current version in D&D is mostly useless.
WotC wants to have their cake and eat it too on too many things in 5e. They want sorcerers to be playable, but not enough for them to make them as good as the wizard. They want people to take and use artisans' tool proficiencies, but only artificers. They want clerics to be the healing support class that it was from previous editions, while simultaneously allowing a Trickery or Tempest Cleric to cast True Resurrection and Animate Dead for some unknown reason. They want people to play at higher levels, but not enough to incentivize that style of play.
Here's a great quote from the wise Ron Swanson, "Never half-ass two things, full ass one thing."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At this point I really wish there was an official Advanced version of 5e that added a little more complexity and crunch as an added layer over the "Basic" 5e framework. I don't want to have several +/- modifiers, but I am tired of people being afraid of learning a new rule or mechanic from time to time.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Shhhhh 🤫 That’s tantamount to sedition around here.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, I have been told that before (I think by you?). I don't care if it would be less than a feat that they get for free, IMO, that's like saying that everyone gets a free level in sorcerer if they roll above 95% upon character creation.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, this 100%. If you haven't, you might want to take a look at ENworld's Advanced 5e system they're developing.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Nahh, more like everybody gets a 1ce/LR 1st level spell from the sorcerer list if they roll above 95%. But you could only play a Sorcerer if you rolled it first.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1) A real skills (non-weapon proficiency) system and not this ambiguous basic thing that feels like they tacked it on at the end of development.
2) Get rid of the 'sleep it off' mechanic that allows you to heal everything that has occurred to your character by simply hitting the bedroll for 8 hours. It is an easy fix at the table, but still this breaks immersion so much for RAW.
3) Allow spells to have limited scalability automatically instead of up casting. It would incentivize more creativity with spells through out the levels.
4) Concentration should be tied to your spell casting stat not constitution. Too many spells require concentration.
5) Make D&D modular like they originally promised with regards to game mechanics. This would help those who want a more 'advanced' and crunchy version at their table.
Dial the dismissal back a bit, Lyxen. Skor's got good points.
5e's skill system sucks. No bones about it - 5e's skill system sucks. Not necessarily because of its over-simplicity (though that definitely doesn't help), but because of its rigidity. 5e has, effectively, nineteen skills that matter - Thieves' Tools, and the eighteen core skills. No DM can ever get rid of or modify any of those core skills - they're baked into the character sheet, hard-coded into the game. A DM wants to merge Arcana and Religion into Occultism for a game where that makes more sense? NOOOOPE - 5e says no, can't modify skills like that, can't be having it, nuh-uh, nope, nein, stoppit. A DM wants to add a Mechanics skill to cover the application of tinkering, mechanical knowledge, and early engineering for a steampunk-y game? NOOOOPE - 5e says no, there ain't no room on no sheet for no new skills, get that idea outta yer hedd right nao, boi, did yew think yew were in charge o'this 'ere game?!
There was a modified 5e sheet I saw recently where the 'Skills' bar was omitted. Instead, there was simply a box for 'Proficiency Bonus' above fifteen to twenty empty lines where players could write in the things they were proficient in. It was beautiful. In one perfect stroke, the obnoxious hard-coded coupling between 'Skill' and 'Ability Score' was broken, the ultra-rigid fixed list of skill proficiencies was eliminated, and the DM was given back control of her game. You could gain proficiency in whatever the figgety-**** you could convince the DM you were proficient in, and that proficiency applied across ability scores. Tools and generic skills were given equal weight. It was gorgeous. I would legit pay money for the option to switch my DDB sheets to the same format, eliminate fixed skills and add a field for write-ins. Alas, Wizards hates both players and roleplaying so it'll never happen.
As for "hit points represent plot armor, not actual damage", that's not universal and you know it. The Constitution save thing is one example. Any touch spell/ability is another. More tables run HP as a 'this is how much blood is left in your body' meter than as a Plot Armor meter. In either case, restocking one's entire supply of blood and/or plot armor on a long rest sucks. They have 'gritty' rules in the DMG, but DDB doesn't support them and trying to do that shit manually is a colossal hassle. I know, we tried it in Grave of Saints until everybody just collectively said "**** this" and switched back to the regular rules. It'd make for a more interesting and engaging game for many if recovery after a mollycobbling was more involved than simply having oneself a beauty sleep.
And finally...please stop telling people to stop playing this game if they don't like 5e's oversimplification. Wizards explicitly promised to deliver modular Advanced Rules layers when they released 5e because they KNEW a lot of people were upset over the game being reduced to Narrative Tic-Tac-Toe; all Skor and others are asking for is that promise be fulfilled. Your insistence that people who want more engagement from 5e are all just blithering idiots who can't understand the true spirit of roleplaying and need to move on to systems with more crunch is obnoxious and unhelpful. Like it or not, this is the system we're stuck with. I've done it 'your' way - I played a couple different attempts at a GURPS game over the web, with form-fillable PDFs and a stack of PDF gamebooks to keep track of. Games came apart, and it's almost impossible to convince an entire table of folks to jump ship even when everybody knows and agrees that 5e cut too close to the bone in many places. We homebrew on the regular, but the tools don't support the 'brew. And finally, this whole thread is about what you'd change in 5e. Telling people they're stupid for wanting to change 5e in a thread asking people what they'd change about 5e is not particularly cool, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I would like Pathfinder 2’s action system. You get three actions, you can spend your three actions in various was based on class.
I love the idea of having spells or actions that require not moving etc.
It is just such a nice system compared to action, bonus action, etc.
Okay, do I have to ask that all important question that I know will not give a satisfying answer because there are various opinions on what the correct answer is? I guess so, so here it goes....
What is the true spirit of this game? What is D&D? I’m curious about people’s answer to this is.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
This thread is starting to move away from "If you could change one thing about DnD 5e, what would it be?" and towards the frankly unacceptable "Why your suggestions for D&D are bad"
All are welcome to pose suggestions for improvements for D&D, but if the only contribution to others suggestions is criticism without being constructive, then that will lead to the thread being locked.
Everyone's experiences of D&D are different and there is no singular way to play. Just because you may not think X is an issue, that does not objectively mean X isn't an issue. Respect each others opinions, don't invalidate each other, and most of all, I say this every time
Be excellent to each other.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To me D&D is a very complicated balance of mechanics that have been a part of the game for decades. The more you change and deviate from the core structure of the game, the more it becomes another game. It is a very thin line and it's location of that line varies from person to person. 4e crossed that line for enough people that WotC had to walk back a little to pull people back in as an example.
probably not a very good answer, but that is how I see it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I see it as: You say what you want to do, DM has you roll a die (preferrably d20) and you tell them the result. Your success is then determined and you can use abilities/skills to potentially help your chances.
Combat is using a lot more of these skills/features to attack and kill/knock out creatures that are iconically DnD (goblins, cubes, owlbear, etc...)
Everybody has a different answer, and for most of them it will boil down to "I don't know what it is, but I damn sure know what it isn't."
It's a huge problem with this game, honestly. It has players who've been running it through many editions for multiple decades, and while they generally can't define 'the spirit of D&D' well, they have an aesthetic built up in their heads based on many years of experience and intuition. Any piece of development which breaks that aesthetic evokes immediate hostility and generally means rejection of the product. It's how Sacred Cows are born, and why this game is still so rustic and weird despite having one of the most highly paid, well-supplied and resource-rich design teams in TTRPG history. They can't change things even when they should be changed, because if they change something they piss off all the Old Guard types and lose their playerbase even if it makes for a better game.
Because, despite what many people think, while 5e is indeed simple it is not typically "elegant" simplicity. Some aspects of the game are good design. The Species/Background/Class trifecta is a great idea, even if class over-dominates the trifecta. The Advantage/Disadvantage system is an excellent piece of design. Bounded accuracy is important in a way many grognards cannot really bring themselves to realize. That said, a significantly larger portion of 5e's design is ham-handed kludge that eliminates nuance and depth more than it 'reduces complexity'. Action/Bonus/Move is infinitely inferior to what Paizo built with their three-action system. 5e's skill system is a tacked-on afterthought with no subtlety or nuance in it whatsoever. And for a game which claims to be equal parts Combat, Exploration, and Social gameplay, there are essentially zero provisions in the DMG for handling Exploarion or Social play. 5e is simple, but it's not elegantly simple. It can't be while the IP is hauling around an entire herd of Sacred Cows through the mud like an entire factory's worth of boat anchors dragging back its design.
Maybe some day, now that 5e is introducing a whole flock of people for whom the cows are not nearly so sacred. 5e was mired by the wreckage of D&D past, but there may be some hope for 6e in the future.
Please do not contact or message me.
Nail on head here....
More people focus on what it shouldn't be.
Unusually enough, I agree with Yurei. I like a lot of old school stuff, but I’ll be the first one to tell you that alignment, for example, is a relic and needs to go...or at least become just good/neutral/evil.
As for the spirit of the game...if you ask me, the spirit is a bunch of friends (or, if you’re playing at your game store, soon-to-be friends) sitting around a table rolling dice, telling stories, and having fun. It’s about the vibe and the friendships more than the game itself.
That said, I think it’s important to realize that nostalgia is also part of the fun of D&D. There are other RPG systems that are worlds better in my opinion, but I keep coming back to D&D for the memories. It’s game design doesn’t need to be the sleekest, we have other games for that, it needs to be itself.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Alignment is a fantastic example of sacred cows dragging down design.
There is absolutely room for Alignment in a D&D game...but players should not be the ones deciding it, or even necessarily be aware of which alignment they fall into. "Alignment" should be a section in a non-DMG sourcebook which describes the archetypical D&D cosmology, where Outer Planes correspond to a given alignment and collect the souls of mortals who correspond to that alignment upon their final deaths. That section should lay out for DMs how to use a player's actions to determine which alignment they fall into, and if the campaign is planar in nature it would tell the DM how to account for the effects of alignment in those planes. Traveling to the Nine Hells? If your alignment doesn't match that of the plane, it causes you discomfort or even pain to be there, and the plane will try and warp you until you do fit - if you're even able to enter that plane in the first place. A Chaotic Good champion of freedom and self-mastery trying to chase an enemy into the Hells may not even be able to enter the plane at all without fulfilling some ritual condition, or without suffering a catastrophic shift in their worldview. There could be an entire cool Optional Advanced Rules Layer built around alignment and its impact on planar campaigns for those DMs/gaming groups who really enjoy playing with it, but without that build behind it? Without the planar influences and origins, without that cosmology? Alignment is pointless.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
Please do not contact or message me.
That goes for far more than just alignment. WotC is too half-‘n-half about too many things.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
100x yes on this one...
If they would just commit to something it would produce a better product. They instead try to catch everyone and it shows in the design. They end up with "Meh" instead of interesting.
Absolutely, Yurei and Sposta. I have always liked the concept of alignment in D&D, but have also felt that 5e's alignment is way too underdeveloped and breaks my suspension of disbelief too much for it to be enjoyable. They should either go all in to an alignment system, giving tables and examples of differently aligned characters and how to determine someone's alignment, or just drop it, as the current version in D&D is mostly useless.
WotC wants to have their cake and eat it too on too many things in 5e. They want sorcerers to be playable, but not enough for them to make them as good as the wizard. They want people to take and use artisans' tool proficiencies, but only artificers. They want clerics to be the healing support class that it was from previous editions, while simultaneously allowing a Trickery or Tempest Cleric to cast True Resurrection and Animate Dead for some unknown reason. They want people to play at higher levels, but not enough to incentivize that style of play.
Here's a great quote from the wise Ron Swanson, "Never half-ass two things, full ass one thing."
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms