For me, I think I would have liked to have something akin to CFV's right from the very beginning. The modularity of the Warlock is what makes it probably my favorite class, and I would love if more classes had that right from the get-go.
(And I know, the thread says to name ONE thing we would change, but for me I think a close second would be to have a more expansive list of equipment with more properties to play around with)
I would radically reduce the options in the game, be it species, or subclasses. The species in Volo's and various other source books should never ever be playable for player chars. There are simply too many as it is today, and new players are already overwhelmed. I had a DM on Thursday night acknowledge two things at his table: He regrets allowing Artificers to his table, and the concept of a 4d6 attribute roll is asinine.
And this guy is as liberal as it gets, both in game and out of game. And yes, one influences the other.
We are now rolling back our stats to some still wildly OP point buy, but the 4d6 option should NEVER be allowed at any table.
Tons of people are still unable to build the character they like under 5e's system, so removing most of the options altogether would drive half the playerbase away.
I agree with the people who want to see some changes made to Martial characters. They really just seem so limited compared to casters who can have dozens of spells and probably a spell for every occasion when needed. BTW, I love cantrips and I think At Wills ala 4E for Martial classes(or some similar variant mechanic) would be awesome. As it stands, the most interesting tactics to employ are Optional Combat Rules that anyone can do. I want something more Class specific for Martial classes. If anyone remembers Earthdawn 1E, all classes had a "magical" feel to them due to the Talents you could choose.
I agree with the people who want to see some changes made to Martial characters. They really just seem so limited compared to casters who can have dozens of spells and probably a spell for every occasion when needed. BTW, I love cantrips and I think At Wills ala 4E for Martial classes(or some similar variant mechanic) would be awesome. As it stands, the most interesting tactics to employ are Optional Combat Rules that anyone can do. I want something more Class specific for Martial classes. If anyone remembers Earthdawn 1E, all classes had a "magical" feel to them due to the Talents you could choose.
I wish the designers had kept healing surges instead of taking a half-step back with hit dice. It was a solid system that helped limit healing (as each healing effect tended to require the spending of a surge) and was also a good resource pool for non-magic characters to draw from for abilities that required extra effort. Also, it was a useful pool to “damage” during environmental challenges to reflect exhaustion or other stressors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
As for keeping the magic mysterious - well, I considered it always a world building thing.
It's not really just world-building. If the players can use magic for every little thing, they are casting spells all the time, regardless of what the NPCs are doing.
It's kind of hard to keep magic mysterious while still allowing PCs to have access to character classes that grant it.
Something one does all the time can nevertheless remain mysterious. An obvious and cliche (and yet nevertheless accurate) example is dealing with the opposite gender, regardless of what your personal gender is. Men and women misunderstand each other constantly, regardless of how much interaction they have.
I'm transgender. I've been on both sides of that argument and really, the main reason that women and men treat each other as being mysterious and unknowable is because they're told the other one is mysterious and unknowable and don't make an effort to actually understand it.
As far as magic goes, if you really want it to be something that's mysterious and rare in the game, you'd need to restrict it. It can't be something that PCs readily have access to. You should probably ban all classes that can cast 6th level or higher spells, along with artificers. You may need to go even further than that.
Do I think this is a good idea in D&D? No, I do not. But that's the only way to preserve the mystery and rareness of magic for players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think that making martial combat as interesting as magical combat would help the game a lot. Combat is currently just a DPR race. If I could remake 5e, I would drastically reduce health. Each hit would be a big deal, and you would have to roll on some sort of wound chart. A lot of focus would go into evasion and blocking, rather than just spamming extra attacks until someone falls over. A three-action system would work well with this, making movement an action, things like blocking an action, or trying to make a better attack. Some spells might take two or three actions to cast, limiting the caster from doing other things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
We are now rolling back our stats to some still wildly OP point buy, but the 4d6 option should NEVER be allowed at any table.
Why is the 4d6 drop one method overpowered? I don't particularly like it, but the chances of getting a god are just as likely as ending up with all eights. I don't see why point buy is overpowered either. It allows more flexibility than standard array, allowing you to go for a more well rounded or a spikier character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I'd love for the three action system to make it over, rather than the current move action, bonus action, action system we have.
It does make martials a lot more interesting than just attacking.
Also why is point buy overpowered? Or 4d6 drop 1? I'm not a fan of rolling at all, but point buy/standard array seems to be what the entire game is designed around.
I wish the designers had kept healing surges instead of taking a half-step back with hit dice. It was a solid system that helped limit healing (as each healing effect tended to require the spending of a surge) and was also a good resource pool for non-magic characters to draw from for abilities that required extra effort. Also, it was a useful pool to “damage” during environmental challenges to reflect exhaustion or other stressors.
I agree that healing is too easy in 5E. However, I would like to see it go back to actually taking "real time" to heal. Insta overnight healing (long rest) is just plain ridiculous, not mention being able to use a bunch of hit dice to heal during a short rest.
Of course giving monsters the ability to heal overnight might balance things out a bit.
I would radically reduce the options in the game, be it species, or subclasses. The species in Volo's and various other source books should never ever be playable for player chars. There are simply too many as it is today, and new players are already overwhelmed. I had a DM on Thursday night acknowledge two things at his table: He regrets allowing Artificers to his table, and the concept of a 4d6 attribute roll is asinine.
And this guy is as liberal as it gets, both in game and out of game. And yes, one influences the other.
We are now rolling back our stats to some still wildly OP point buy, but the 4d6 option should NEVER be allowed at any table.
The rules for rolling stats in 5e are not “Roll 4d6” but instead “Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die.” It ends up only slightly above average of 3d6 like the game has always been.
What’s wrong with Artificers? IMO, they are the best designed class in 5e (followed closely by Warlocks).
I wish the designers had kept healing surges instead of taking a half-step back with hit dice. It was a solid system that helped limit healing (as each healing effect tended to require the spending of a surge) and was also a good resource pool for non-magic characters to draw from for abilities that required extra effort. Also, it was a useful pool to “damage” during environmental challenges to reflect exhaustion or other stressors.
I agree that healing is too easy in 5E. However, I would like to see it go back to actually taking "real time" to heal. Insta overnight healing (long rest) is just plain ridiculous, not mention being able to use a bunch of hit dice to heal during a short rest.
Of course giving monsters the ability to heal overnight might balance things out a bit.
The thing is, monsters rarely escape and actually have to heal. If a monster escapes in one of my games, and they fight it a day later, it will be back to full health. Is that not standard practice?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I have zero issue with the 27 point buy. I use it in my game. I should qualify: This DM wants to use a 37 point (no typo) point buy, and that is still miles ahead of the 4d6 method.
Case in point: My Half Elf Paladin, using the 4d6 method: We are now at 9th level. (2 ASI's). My char has a 20, three 16's, a 14, and my lowest at 11. And that is AFTER taking Resilience in Con and Elven Accuracy. That char now has a +12 in Con Saves, which means the DM must do a minimum of 28 points of damage with a single attack before I even entertain making a Concentration savings throw. I pointed out that this char could not even have these stats at level 20 with standard array or 27 point buy. Every player in the group miraculously rolled exceptionally high (honour system, naturally).
I showed this all to my DM, and suggested we roll back the stats of all players, since it is virtually impossible for him to balance encounters because of the grotesque mockery of abilities the players have made. He agreed.
4d6 introduces huge variation into the game in starting abilities of players, and that gap never goes away. The low end players are always taking a backseat to the high stat chars. (and please don't even begin that they can make that up in role-play). All chars should have the same starting opportunity, period.
I have zero issue with the 27 point buy. I use it in my game. I should qualify: This DM wants to use a 37 point (no typo) point buy, and that is still miles ahead of the 4d6 method.
Case in point: My Half Elf Paladin, using the 4d6 method: We are now at 9th level. (2 ASI's). My char has a 20, three 16's, a 14, and my lowest at 11. And that is AFTER taking Resilience in Con and Elven Accuracy. That char now has a +12 in Con Saves, which means the DM must do a minimum of 28 points of damage with a single attack before I even entertain making a Concentration savings throw. I pointed out that this char could not even have these stats at level 20 with standard array or 27 point buy. Every player in the group miraculously rolled exceptionally high (honour system, naturally).
I showed this all to my DM, and suggested we roll back the stats of all players, since it is virtually impossible for him to balance encounters because of the grotesque mockery of abilities the players have made. He agreed.
4d6 introduces huge variation into the game in starting abilities of players, and that gap never goes away. The low end players are always taking a backseat to the high stat chars. (and please don't even begin that they can make that up in role-play). All chars should have the same starting opportunity, period.
Wow. 37 points? I agree, that is broken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I have zero issue with the 27 point buy. I use it in my game. I should qualify: This DM wants to use a 37 point (no typo) point buy, and that is still miles ahead of the 4d6 method.
Case in point: My Half Elf Paladin, using the 4d6 method: We are now at 9th level. (2 ASI's). My char has a 20, three 16's, a 14, and my lowest at 11. And that is AFTER taking Resilience in Con and Elven Accuracy. That char now has a +12 in Con Saves, which means the DM must do a minimum of 28 points of damage with a single attack before I even entertain making a Concentration savings throw. I pointed out that this char could not even have these stats at level 20 with standard array or 27 point buy. Every player in the group miraculously rolled exceptionally high (honour system, naturally).
I showed this all to my DM, and suggested we roll back the stats of all players, since it is virtually impossible for him to balance encounters because of the grotesque mockery of abilities the players have made. He agreed.
4d6 introduces huge variation into the game in starting abilities of players, and that gap never goes away. The low end players are always taking a backseat to the high stat chars. (and please don't even begin that they can make that up in role-play). All chars should have the same starting opportunity, period.
4d6 without any additional stipulation like "reroll if lower than 8" or "reroll if total stats less than 70-75" will usually give you a lot of Mr. Averages with most stats like 11-13. So if there is power concern, then obviously 37 point buy is way stronger.
If the variation between players is a concern then that's another matter. Raising the floor helps a lot (above mentioned "minimums"). And while making up the difference in role-play is not something that is tangible, making up the difference with class choice is.
I will take a 27 point buy Divination Wizard over a 37 point buy Beastmaster any day.
Stat rolling is a legacy system, it's there because it was always there, though I agree that point buy is better. I gave my players choice and no one wanted to roll. Having said that, starting stats are hardly the only thing that introduces inbalance between players.
My players have those classes: Chronurgist Wizard, Eldritch Knight Archer, Gloomstalker Archer, Arcane Trickster, Life Cleric and Circle of the Moon Druid. Everyone had 27 point buy and yet I don't feel like their characters are equally powerful.
I wish the designers had kept healing surges instead of taking a half-step back with hit dice. It was a solid system that helped limit healing (as each healing effect tended to require the spending of a surge) and was also a good resource pool for non-magic characters to draw from for abilities that required extra effort. Also, it was a useful pool to “damage” during environmental challenges to reflect exhaustion or other stressors.
I agree that healing is too easy in 5E. However, I would like to see it go back to actually taking "real time" to heal. Insta overnight healing (long rest) is just plain ridiculous, not mention being able to use a bunch of hit dice to heal during a short rest.
Of course giving monsters the ability to heal overnight might balance things out a bit.
There is another thread on this subject but this is high fantasy, and you have to remember that even at 1 hp out of 100, a character is not wounded at all, his efficiency is still 100%. So healing him is not really closing wounds, it's actually restoring his plot protection, and in the genre, it is usually very fast for the same reason than in the RPG, because doing otherwise is annoying to players and detracts from the fun. D&D is not realistic, it simulates the genre, nothing more.
I think Lyxen just hit on something MAJOR here.
In my games (whether it's a high-magic or low-magic setting) I am VERY nebulous with my concept of hit points. Regardless of how common magic is, I prefer a more gritty approach to the description of damage. In my games, losing hit points is never about getting a spear in the thigh or taking a Fire Bolt to the face. It's about deflecting the spear at the last moment, or the Fire Bolt slamming into your Mage Armor spell and dissipating, as the residual heat makes you gasp for breath.
I MIGHT make an exception where it makes sense. For example, a big, bulky Barbarian in the midst of a rage could reasonably shrug off a club to the gut, or I might allow the Wizard a bloody nose from the bandit that ambushed him with a fist to the face. Those examples are just to give you a sense of how I adjudicate my characters' hit point management.
I remember that Star Wars D20 (not Saga Edition, the one before) had a system of hit points and wound points. Basically it worked exactly like you described, you get a lot of hit points and you usually describe losing hit points as parrying or near misses and then you had a second pool of very few wound points (I think it was just the Con score or something similar) where basically one hit gets you down and that was true damage.
At any rate, however you describe it, the problem always arises in situations where it's unrealistic to assume that an attack has missed - for instance, it's a bit silly that when someone is paralyzed, you still have to make attack rolls against them in melee and can miss.
Some suspension of disbelief is needed in all instances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For me, I think I would have liked to have something akin to CFV's right from the very beginning. The modularity of the Warlock is what makes it probably my favorite class, and I would love if more classes had that right from the get-go.
(And I know, the thread says to name ONE thing we would change, but for me I think a close second would be to have a more expansive list of equipment with more properties to play around with)
I would radically reduce the options in the game, be it species, or subclasses. The species in Volo's and various other source books should never ever be playable for player chars. There are simply too many as it is today, and new players are already overwhelmed. I had a DM on Thursday night acknowledge two things at his table: He regrets allowing Artificers to his table, and the concept of a 4d6 attribute roll is asinine.
And this guy is as liberal as it gets, both in game and out of game. And yes, one influences the other.
We are now rolling back our stats to some still wildly OP point buy, but the 4d6 option should NEVER be allowed at any table.
Can't you do that already?
Just say player handbook + 1?
Tons of people are still unable to build the character they like under 5e's system, so removing most of the options altogether would drive half the playerbase away.
I agree with the people who want to see some changes made to Martial characters. They really just seem so limited compared to casters who can have dozens of spells and probably a spell for every occasion when needed. BTW, I love cantrips and I think At Wills ala 4E for Martial classes(or some similar variant mechanic) would be awesome. As it stands, the most interesting tactics to employ are Optional Combat Rules that anyone can do. I want something more Class specific for Martial classes. If anyone remembers Earthdawn 1E, all classes had a "magical" feel to them due to the Talents you could choose.
I would limit the number of classes that have access to magic, to actual magic users...
It seems to me that in 5E (relative to earlier versions), magic like abilities have replaced magic items
Yep, definitely
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I wish the designers had kept healing surges instead of taking a half-step back with hit dice. It was a solid system that helped limit healing (as each healing effect tended to require the spending of a surge) and was also a good resource pool for non-magic characters to draw from for abilities that required extra effort. Also, it was a useful pool to “damage” during environmental challenges to reflect exhaustion or other stressors.
I'm transgender. I've been on both sides of that argument and really, the main reason that women and men treat each other as being mysterious and unknowable is because they're told the other one is mysterious and unknowable and don't make an effort to actually understand it.
As far as magic goes, if you really want it to be something that's mysterious and rare in the game, you'd need to restrict it. It can't be something that PCs readily have access to. You should probably ban all classes that can cast 6th level or higher spells, along with artificers. You may need to go even further than that.
Do I think this is a good idea in D&D? No, I do not. But that's the only way to preserve the mystery and rareness of magic for players.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think that making martial combat as interesting as magical combat would help the game a lot. Combat is currently just a DPR race. If I could remake 5e, I would drastically reduce health. Each hit would be a big deal, and you would have to roll on some sort of wound chart. A lot of focus would go into evasion and blocking, rather than just spamming extra attacks until someone falls over. A three-action system would work well with this, making movement an action, things like blocking an action, or trying to make a better attack. Some spells might take two or three actions to cast, limiting the caster from doing other things.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Why is the 4d6 drop one method overpowered? I don't particularly like it, but the chances of getting a god are just as likely as ending up with all eights. I don't see why point buy is overpowered either. It allows more flexibility than standard array, allowing you to go for a more well rounded or a spikier character.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'd love for the three action system to make it over, rather than the current move action, bonus action, action system we have.
It does make martials a lot more interesting than just attacking.
Also why is point buy overpowered? Or 4d6 drop 1? I'm not a fan of rolling at all, but point buy/standard array seems to be what the entire game is designed around.
I agree that healing is too easy in 5E. However, I would like to see it go back to actually taking "real time" to heal. Insta overnight healing (long rest) is just plain ridiculous, not mention being able to use a bunch of hit dice to heal during a short rest.
Of course giving monsters the ability to heal overnight might balance things out a bit.
The rules for rolling stats in 5e are not “Roll 4d6” but instead “Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die.” It ends up only slightly above average of 3d6 like the game has always been.
What’s wrong with Artificers? IMO, they are the best designed class in 5e (followed closely by Warlocks).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The thing is, monsters rarely escape and actually have to heal. If a monster escapes in one of my games, and they fight it a day later, it will be back to full health. Is that not standard practice?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I have zero issue with the 27 point buy. I use it in my game. I should qualify: This DM wants to use a 37 point (no typo) point buy, and that is still miles ahead of the 4d6 method.
Case in point: My Half Elf Paladin, using the 4d6 method: We are now at 9th level. (2 ASI's). My char has a 20, three 16's, a 14, and my lowest at 11. And that is AFTER taking Resilience in Con and Elven Accuracy. That char now has a +12 in Con Saves, which means the DM must do a minimum of 28 points of damage with a single attack before I even entertain making a Concentration savings throw. I pointed out that this char could not even have these stats at level 20 with standard array or 27 point buy. Every player in the group miraculously rolled exceptionally high (honour system, naturally).
I showed this all to my DM, and suggested we roll back the stats of all players, since it is virtually impossible for him to balance encounters because of the grotesque mockery of abilities the players have made. He agreed.
4d6 introduces huge variation into the game in starting abilities of players, and that gap never goes away. The low end players are always taking a backseat to the high stat chars. (and please don't even begin that they can make that up in role-play). All chars should have the same starting opportunity, period.
I'd actually make a new deities and demigods book.
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow. 37 points? I agree, that is broken.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
4d6 without any additional stipulation like "reroll if lower than 8" or "reroll if total stats less than 70-75" will usually give you a lot of Mr. Averages with most stats like 11-13. So if there is power concern, then obviously 37 point buy is way stronger.
If the variation between players is a concern then that's another matter. Raising the floor helps a lot (above mentioned "minimums"). And while making up the difference in role-play is not something that is tangible, making up the difference with class choice is.
I will take a 27 point buy Divination Wizard over a 37 point buy Beastmaster any day.
Stat rolling is a legacy system, it's there because it was always there, though I agree that point buy is better. I gave my players choice and no one wanted to roll. Having said that, starting stats are hardly the only thing that introduces inbalance between players.
My players have those classes: Chronurgist Wizard, Eldritch Knight Archer, Gloomstalker Archer, Arcane Trickster, Life Cleric and Circle of the Moon Druid. Everyone had 27 point buy and yet I don't feel like their characters are equally powerful.
exactly. dnd is not balanced, and turning stats into strategy does not change that.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I remember that Star Wars D20 (not Saga Edition, the one before) had a system of hit points and wound points. Basically it worked exactly like you described, you get a lot of hit points and you usually describe losing hit points as parrying or near misses and then you had a second pool of very few wound points (I think it was just the Con score or something similar) where basically one hit gets you down and that was true damage.
At any rate, however you describe it, the problem always arises in situations where it's unrealistic to assume that an attack has missed - for instance, it's a bit silly that when someone is paralyzed, you still have to make attack rolls against them in melee and can miss.
Some suspension of disbelief is needed in all instances.