This is more conceptual than the other problems, but there it goes.
Problem: Actions are wack.
Solution: Implement an action similar to Pathfinder. D&D's action system is pretty good on the base. Main action for attacks, bonus action for little extra abilities, reaction for stuff on other turns. But once you get into free actions, casting spells that restricts you to a cantrip, and reactions on your turn really mix the system up. I feel that Pathfinder's system is much neater, and it basically goes like this:
You get three actions on your turn. You have to spend actions to move, or hold them to other turns. For example, you could move ten feet as your first action, throw a dagger with your second, and save the third for an opportunity attack. This has interesting effects on balancing. You can have heavy and light attacks which cost different amounts of actions (making combat more interesting instead of spamming one type of attack) not moving lets you attack more, and it is just generally neater than D&D's system.
I definitely want a 3-Action System like Pathfinder 2e, but that would be really difficult to implement into 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This is more conceptual than the other problems, but there it goes.
Problem: Actions are wack.
Solution: Implement an action similar to Pathfinder. D&D's action system is pretty good on the base. Main action for attacks, bonus action for little extra abilities, reaction for stuff on other turns. But once you get into free actions, casting spells that restricts you to a cantrip, and reactions on your turn really mix the system up. I feel that Pathfinder's system is much neater, and it basically goes like this:
You get three actions on your turn. You have to spend actions to move, or hold them to other turns. For example, you could move ten feet as your first action, throw a dagger with your second, and save the third for an opportunity attack. This has interesting effects on balancing. You can have heavy and light attacks which cost different amounts of actions (making combat more interesting instead of spamming one type of attack) not moving lets you attack more, and it is just generally neater than D&D's system.
I definitely want a 3-Action System like Pathfinder 2e, but that would be really difficult to implement into 5e.
It would probably require a new edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It's startling to me how many of these problems would be solved by adopting more of the design ideas from 4th Edition but flavoring them to be more palatable to older players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
It's startling to me how many of these problems would be solved by adopting more of the design ideas from 4th Edition but flavoring them to be more palatable to older players.
5e got rid of a lot of things from 3.5e in the name of simplicity and bounded accuracy, and got rid of a lot of things from 4e because players took offense at them. Those are not invalid reasons, but the reality is, those mechanics existed for a reason, so getting rid of them isn't free.
Just noticing a lot of folks are offering solutions by introducing back 3.5 and 4e elements. Isn't this what the ENWorld supplement in progress is essentially trying to do? Has anyone seen anything of that project besides the press release announcing it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
They released at least one playtest/preview for it. People were ambivalent, and mostly dismissive of "this is just a Pathfinder company putting Pathfinder in a 5e wrapper". I didn't pay a ton of attention to it, after a brief once-over told me it would be utterly impossible to implement in any real way in DDB. Sad, but ehh.
They released at least one playtest/preview for it. People were ambivalent, and mostly dismissive of "this is just a Pathfinder company putting Pathfinder in a 5e wrapper". I didn't pay a ton of attention to it, after a brief once-over told me it would be utterly impossible to implement in any real way in DDB. Sad, but ehh.
Yeah, it wasn't great. It basically went the way of just adding tons of features instead of interesting ones. There were some good parts, but they were mixed in with a whole lot of meh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Oh god there is so much I could mention in a thread like this, despite loving 5e overall. I consider most of the 5e gameplay rules essentially perfect, being streamlined yet complex enough to do most things. Though some things like the economy and ways to spend money need expanding.
My dislike and what I'd want to redo from scratch would be the entire way the race/background/class/subclass/multiclass/feat system has been done. Basically everything do do with making a character and their progression.
- Profs, languages, skills, and anything culture related should go into background. Background is basically fluff atm. This includes things like dwarven stonecutting and other 'background' things which are currently under race.
- A redo of how classes and subclasses are handled, with subclasses being variable in their power budget. Some would function how they do now, while others actually overwrite and remove core class features to expand their own identity. Currently 5e is incapable of handling those many concepts which are redundant as classes, but too big and unique for a subclass. You either get classes which feel poor like ranger and sorcerer, with many people saying they should get folded into another class, while you also get subclasses like battlemaster and eldritch knight which do a poor imitation of their full class equivalents in prior editions.
- A redo of how multiclassing works to match pathfinder 2e. DnD 5e multiclassing feels like a last minute glued on afterthought. Currently trying to multiclassing just wrecks how ASIs and tiers of play are set up to work, and the game clearly wasn't designed for it. A system like pathfinder where you progress normally, but can choose to sacrifice a class feature for the feature of another class (with restrictions and limits) would work much better.
- Changing feats so that they no longer compete with ASIs. You shouldn't have to pick between fun flavour and upping your stats.
- Lots of class options like warlock pacts. Currently class progression is basically linear without choice past the subclass.
- Stick in the pathfinder three action system. It's like the one good bit of pathfinder 2e's gameplay rules, and is far better than bonus action, move action, reaction, action action.
Okay, there quite a few great suggestions so far. Here's a few more:
Problem: Monks are too limited in theme, stuck in the stereotypical martial artist niche.
Solution: Completely revise the whole class, opening it up from Karate Kids and Anime Animals to wrestlers, brawlers, and boxers. The "Tavern Brawler" feat could be rolled into the class, making it be a more general and open "unarmed fighter" class than a "punchy ninja skirmisher" class. The stereotypical kung-fu parts of it could be relegated to subclasses or features similar to Pact Boons, with the other option being an "Improvised fighter" character.
Problem: Sorcerers. Okay, okay, I'll clarify that a bit more. Sorcerers currently have a huge overlap with Wizards on their spell list, use the most common ability score for their spellcasting (CHA), and have much less versatility and spell choice than Wizards while being just as squishy and filling a similar niche.
Solution: Give sorcerers more unique spells specific to their spell list (they currently only have chaos bolt), make them use Constitution for their spellcasting ability score, and give every spell list an extra list of spells that they automatically know. I would also allow Sorcerers to cast spells in more unique ways than Wizards, being capable of sacrificing spell slots/hit dice to cast spells more often/with more power, allow them to cast spells without most material components as their magic is innate and should count as a spellcasting focus, and allow for them to cover a bigger range of niches than Wizards (probably through subclasses, like Divine Soul Sorcerers).
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, there quite a few great suggestions so far. Here's a few more:
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Eh, I don't think this is really that big of a problem. Yes, warlocks are limited in theme, but it isn't too bad. And most spell lists are designed to allow you to choose the spells of your archetype. For example, an Illusionist wizard is still able to take Evocation spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Disentangling HP from Level might be a solution to a long-standing problem, One fix is to either migrate a system like Star Wars d20 or else go all the way back to Dave Arneson's Pre-D&D Blackmoor-style Hit Points. From First Fantasy Campaign:
Combat was quite simple at first and then got progressively complicated with the addition of Hit Locations, etc...as players first rolled for characteristics, the number of Hits a body could take ran from 0-100. As the player progressed, he did not receive additional Hits Points, but rather he became harder to Hit. All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player revived(sic) a "Saving Throw" against any Hit he received. Thus, although he might be "Hit" several times during a melee round, in actuality he might not take any damage at all. Only Fighters gained advantages in these melee Saving Throws. Clerics and Magicians progressed in their own areas, which might or might not modify their Saving Throws. And so it went, Hit Location so that even the mighty Smaug could fall to a single arrow in the right place (very unlikely), height differentiation, so that the little guys could run around more and the big ones could kill more, etc. Still these were guidelines, Hit Location was generally used only for the bigger critters, and only on a man to man level were all the options thrown in. This allowed play to progress quickly even if the poor monsters suffered more for it.
Personally, I think 3d6 instead of d20 for play resolution produces better and more consistent results. Again, this is weighted more towards the players than the DM since the former will likely have to make more Saving Throws than the latter in many cases.
And Illusionists need to be their own class again, damnit. They aren't simply "Mages that do Illusions". They're fundamentally a different TYPE of spellcaster as different from Wizards as Druids are to Clerics, etc.
Okay, there quite a few great suggestions so far. Here's a few more:
Problem: Monks are too limited in theme, stuck in the stereotypical martial artist niche.
Solution: Completely revise the whole class, opening it up from Karate Kids and Anime Animals to wrestlers, brawlers, and boxers. The "Tavern Brawler" feat could be rolled into the class, making it be a more general and open "unarmed fighter" class than a "punchy ninja skirmisher" class. The stereotypical kung-fu parts of it could be relegated to subclasses or features similar to Pact Boons, with the other option being an "Improvised fighter" character.
Problem: Sorcerers. Okay, okay, I'll clarify that a bit more. Sorcerers currently have a huge overlap with Wizards on their spell list, use the most common ability score for their spellcasting (CHA), and have much less versatility and spell choice than Wizards while being just as squishy and filling a similar niche.
Solution: Give sorcerers more unique spells specific to their spell list (they currently only have chaos bolt), make them use Constitution for their spellcasting ability score, and give every spell list an extra list of spells that they automatically know. I would also allow Sorcerers to cast spells in more unique ways than Wizards, being capable of sacrificing spell slots/hit dice to cast spells more often/with more power, allow them to cast spells without most material components as their magic is innate and should count as a spellcasting focus, and allow for them to cover a bigger range of niches than Wizards (probably through subclasses, like Divine Soul Sorcerers).
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Hmmm..... just some thoughts.
First, on the monks, while I do agree it could probably stand to open up a bit... fundamentally, the theme of the monk should still revolve around the whole asian-cultivation fantasy. The Wu Xia genre that inspires the class literally translates as "martial heroes" and revolves around the use of various forms of martial arts. I do think it includes the karate kid and anime influences, but that's because those are derived from the same wu xia fantasy stories in the first place. Also, I feel that the monk should remain a skirmisher type, making it more akin to the rogue and ranger than like the fighter, paladin or berserker. Classic cultivator abilities, like running along walls, just wouldn't be the same without it.
There are other ways to improve the monks, moving it away from its roots would really destroy the class identity, imho.
--------------------
I agree with the Sorcerer needing their own unique spells.
--------------------
Warlock, though.... well, there's lots of issues that I think could be fixed with how they implemented Pact Magic, but... why would they get rid of those spells? I mean, you pick and choose what spells are appropriate based on your patron. Why remove the ones that are thematically appropriate for a wide number of warlocks?
That'd be like getting rid of all ice spells from the sorcerer list, because a fire dragon sorcerer wouldn't use them.
Bear in mind that a 'fixed' D&D has to remain a game people accept as being D&D. That means a lot of radical options (such as dramatic changes to how hit points work) have to be left off the table.
Bear in mind that a 'fixed' D&D has to remain a game people accept as being D&D. That means a lot of radical options (such as dramatic changes to how hit points work) have to be left off the table.
Almost every change in this thread would require massive amounts of playtesting to be remotely workable. I doubt they'll be showing up at tables anytime soon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Problem: Death Saves make dying extremely rare, and a PC with 2 failures can be revived to full fighting status with a spell granting 1 hp
Solution: Players track negative hp from damage. If you have 0 or negative HP, you become unconscious, unstable, and make death saves; on a succes, roll one of your hit dice and add positive HP to your total (can't raise total above 0). On a failure do the same and add negative HP (subtract) from your total. Damage taken would add negative HP, Healing would add positive HP. You stabilize naturally if you reach 0 HP from a death save; you die if you have negative HP that is 1/2 your max positive HP at any point. Spare the dying stablizes the creature and halts death save failures from adding negative HP (successes still add positive HP up to 0). The spell would read something like "you touch a creature that is dying and has 0 or negative HP. The creature stabilizes and rolls one hit dice at the end of each of its turns, adding the result to its total, until it reaches 0 hitpoints or becomes unstable again."
Problem: Spell Foci and the S vs SM debate
Solution: Allow Spell Foci to replace the S or the SM components of spells
Problem: The CR system is hard to understand and doesn't work as intended very often.
Solution: Make monsters of CR 1 roughly the equivalent of a level 1 character. This would mean that if you wanted a potentially deadly encounter you'd throw a number of CR 1 monsters at the party equal to the number of party members and if you wanted a slightly easier encounter throw less at them. This would favor a shorter number of encounters per day but who actually has 8 encounters per day when combats can take an hour and traps rarely do enough to be considered a full encounter. In fact, I think the second greatest strength of this system is that it allows the DM to do anywhere from 1 to 3 or 4 encounters a day depending on how many monsters they put into combat.
Problem: Monsters feel like meatbags (especially at high levels) and lack special abilities that would make fighting them interesting for the most part.
Solution: Every monster species gets a special ability such as aggressive for orcs, and then there's a table of special abilities for elite monsters of the different types (undead, humanoids, dragons, etc.). In addition, there are special rules for taking a monster and turning it into a solo boss monster. Solo boss monsters have more hp, do more damage, receive multiple elite abilities, and have the ability to summon 1 hp minions which have a special ability that is rolled for as a group (every monster the boss summons gets the same ability). Most of the boss monster's minion's abilities are area of effect debuffs or buffs that make them just as important to deal with as the boss. Also, add rules for cleaving through minions so martials don't feel extremely weak here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
Outside of fixing the obvious idiocies of the Grappling, Jumping, and Falling rules, WOTC should hire an economist to actually analyze the various values, costs, and incomes thrown around in the game. Barring that, hand the job to someone at WOTC who understands how to use a spreadsheet and grasps numbers, not feelings.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
The area of that spell is 502 acres. Lets say that 60% is actual arable land under cultivation. 40% would be forested, roads, settlements, or simply not arable (lakes, swamps, ponds, dragons' lairs).
So now we are working with 300 acres. A 5th level caster doubles the crop income on that much land, daily. Page 157 of the PHB states that a pound of wheat = 1 cp. There are 60 pounds of wheat in a bushel. I have seen numbers from 7 to 15 bushels of wheat were produced per acre in medieval times. Let's call it 10 bushels/acre. So:
600 pounds/acre * 300 acres = 180,000 pounds of wheat.
So, a 5th level caster creates that much additional wealth every day. 180,000 pounds = 180,000 copper pieces = 1,800 GP per day additional wealth. Let's say the caster charges the lord of the manor half of that. (yeah, the lords of the manors owned the land, not the farmers).
900 GP/ day, for one 3rd level spell. Kind of great work for really low risk. Now visualize the same caster working in a high value crop, like a vineyard. Clearly out of whack with much of the economy of the game.
This is just one example of how much of a mess the stated economic values in the 5e economy are.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
5th level characters are probably quite rare, so not many would be wandering around the countryside performing all this spell casting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I definitely want a 3-Action System like Pathfinder 2e, but that would be really difficult to implement into 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm not sure, I know nothing about Pathfinder.
It would probably require a new edition.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
It's startling to me how many of these problems would be solved by adopting more of the design ideas from 4th Edition but flavoring them to be more palatable to older players.
5e got rid of a lot of things from 3.5e in the name of simplicity and bounded accuracy, and got rid of a lot of things from 4e because players took offense at them. Those are not invalid reasons, but the reality is, those mechanics existed for a reason, so getting rid of them isn't free.
Dungeon World
Just noticing a lot of folks are offering solutions by introducing back 3.5 and 4e elements. Isn't this what the ENWorld supplement in progress is essentially trying to do? Has anyone seen anything of that project besides the press release announcing it?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
They released at least one playtest/preview for it. People were ambivalent, and mostly dismissive of "this is just a Pathfinder company putting Pathfinder in a 5e wrapper". I didn't pay a ton of attention to it, after a brief once-over told me it would be utterly impossible to implement in any real way in DDB. Sad, but ehh.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, it wasn't great. It basically went the way of just adding tons of features instead of interesting ones. There were some good parts, but they were mixed in with a whole lot of meh.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Oh god there is so much I could mention in a thread like this, despite loving 5e overall. I consider most of the 5e gameplay rules essentially perfect, being streamlined yet complex enough to do most things. Though some things like the economy and ways to spend money need expanding.
My dislike and what I'd want to redo from scratch would be the entire way the race/background/class/subclass/multiclass/feat system has been done. Basically everything do do with making a character and their progression.
- Profs, languages, skills, and anything culture related should go into background. Background is basically fluff atm. This includes things like dwarven stonecutting and other 'background' things which are currently under race.
- A redo of how classes and subclasses are handled, with subclasses being variable in their power budget. Some would function how they do now, while others actually overwrite and remove core class features to expand their own identity. Currently 5e is incapable of handling those many concepts which are redundant as classes, but too big and unique for a subclass. You either get classes which feel poor like ranger and sorcerer, with many people saying they should get folded into another class, while you also get subclasses like battlemaster and eldritch knight which do a poor imitation of their full class equivalents in prior editions.
- A redo of how multiclassing works to match pathfinder 2e. DnD 5e multiclassing feels like a last minute glued on afterthought. Currently trying to multiclassing just wrecks how ASIs and tiers of play are set up to work, and the game clearly wasn't designed for it. A system like pathfinder where you progress normally, but can choose to sacrifice a class feature for the feature of another class (with restrictions and limits) would work much better.
- Changing feats so that they no longer compete with ASIs. You shouldn't have to pick between fun flavour and upping your stats.
- Lots of class options like warlock pacts. Currently class progression is basically linear without choice past the subclass.
- Stick in the pathfinder three action system. It's like the one good bit of pathfinder 2e's gameplay rules, and is far better than bonus action, move action, reaction, action action.
Okay, there quite a few great suggestions so far. Here's a few more:
Problem: Monks are too limited in theme, stuck in the stereotypical martial artist niche.
Solution: Completely revise the whole class, opening it up from Karate Kids and Anime Animals to wrestlers, brawlers, and boxers. The "Tavern Brawler" feat could be rolled into the class, making it be a more general and open "unarmed fighter" class than a "punchy ninja skirmisher" class. The stereotypical kung-fu parts of it could be relegated to subclasses or features similar to Pact Boons, with the other option being an "Improvised fighter" character.
Problem: Sorcerers. Okay, okay, I'll clarify that a bit more. Sorcerers currently have a huge overlap with Wizards on their spell list, use the most common ability score for their spellcasting (CHA), and have much less versatility and spell choice than Wizards while being just as squishy and filling a similar niche.
Solution: Give sorcerers more unique spells specific to their spell list (they currently only have chaos bolt), make them use Constitution for their spellcasting ability score, and give every spell list an extra list of spells that they automatically know. I would also allow Sorcerers to cast spells in more unique ways than Wizards, being capable of sacrificing spell slots/hit dice to cast spells more often/with more power, allow them to cast spells without most material components as their magic is innate and should count as a spellcasting focus, and allow for them to cover a bigger range of niches than Wizards (probably through subclasses, like Divine Soul Sorcerers).
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Eh, I don't think this is really that big of a problem. Yes, warlocks are limited in theme, but it isn't too bad. And most spell lists are designed to allow you to choose the spells of your archetype. For example, an Illusionist wizard is still able to take Evocation spells.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Disentangling HP from Level might be a solution to a long-standing problem, One fix is to either migrate a system like Star Wars d20 or else go all the way back to Dave Arneson's Pre-D&D Blackmoor-style Hit Points. From First Fantasy Campaign:
Combat was quite simple at first and then got progressively complicated with the addition of Hit Locations, etc...as players first rolled for characteristics, the number of Hits a body could take ran from 0-100. As the player progressed, he did not receive additional Hits Points, but rather he became harder to Hit. All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player revived(sic) a "Saving Throw" against any Hit he received. Thus, although he might be "Hit" several times during a melee round, in actuality he might not take any damage at all. Only Fighters gained advantages in these melee Saving Throws. Clerics and Magicians progressed in their own areas, which might or might not modify their Saving Throws. And so it went, Hit Location so that even the mighty Smaug could fall to a single arrow in the right place (very unlikely), height differentiation, so that the little guys could run around more and the big ones could kill more, etc. Still these were guidelines, Hit Location was generally used only for the bigger critters, and only on a man to man level were all the options thrown in. This allowed play to progress quickly even if the poor monsters suffered more for it.
Personally, I think 3d6 instead of d20 for play resolution produces better and more consistent results. Again, this is weighted more towards the players than the DM since the former will likely have to make more Saving Throws than the latter in many cases.
And Illusionists need to be their own class again, damnit. They aren't simply "Mages that do Illusions". They're fundamentally a different TYPE of spellcaster as different from Wizards as Druids are to Clerics, etc.
Hmmm..... just some thoughts.
First, on the monks, while I do agree it could probably stand to open up a bit... fundamentally, the theme of the monk should still revolve around the whole asian-cultivation fantasy. The Wu Xia genre that inspires the class literally translates as "martial heroes" and revolves around the use of various forms of martial arts. I do think it includes the karate kid and anime influences, but that's because those are derived from the same wu xia fantasy stories in the first place. Also, I feel that the monk should remain a skirmisher type, making it more akin to the rogue and ranger than like the fighter, paladin or berserker. Classic cultivator abilities, like running along walls, just wouldn't be the same without it.
There are other ways to improve the monks, moving it away from its roots would really destroy the class identity, imho.
--------------------
I agree with the Sorcerer needing their own unique spells.
--------------------
Warlock, though.... well, there's lots of issues that I think could be fixed with how they implemented Pact Magic, but... why would they get rid of those spells? I mean, you pick and choose what spells are appropriate based on your patron. Why remove the ones that are thematically appropriate for a wide number of warlocks?
That'd be like getting rid of all ice spells from the sorcerer list, because a fire dragon sorcerer wouldn't use them.
Bear in mind that a 'fixed' D&D has to remain a game people accept as being D&D. That means a lot of radical options (such as dramatic changes to how hit points work) have to be left off the table.
Almost every change in this thread would require massive amounts of playtesting to be remotely workable. I doubt they'll be showing up at tables anytime soon.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Problem: Death Saves make dying extremely rare, and a PC with 2 failures can be revived to full fighting status with a spell granting 1 hp
Solution: Players track negative hp from damage. If you have 0 or negative HP, you become unconscious, unstable, and make death saves; on a succes, roll one of your hit dice and add positive HP to your total (can't raise total above 0). On a failure do the same and add negative HP (subtract) from your total. Damage taken would add negative HP, Healing would add positive HP. You stabilize naturally if you reach 0 HP from a death save; you die if you have negative HP that is 1/2 your max positive HP at any point. Spare the dying stablizes the creature and halts death save failures from adding negative HP (successes still add positive HP up to 0). The spell would read something like "you touch a creature that is dying and has 0 or negative HP. The creature stabilizes and rolls one hit dice at the end of each of its turns, adding the result to its total, until it reaches 0 hitpoints or becomes unstable again."
Problem: Spell Foci and the S vs SM debate
Solution: Allow Spell Foci to replace the S or the SM components of spells
Problem: The CR system is hard to understand and doesn't work as intended very often.
Solution: Make monsters of CR 1 roughly the equivalent of a level 1 character. This would mean that if you wanted a potentially deadly encounter you'd throw a number of CR 1 monsters at the party equal to the number of party members and if you wanted a slightly easier encounter throw less at them. This would favor a shorter number of encounters per day but who actually has 8 encounters per day when combats can take an hour and traps rarely do enough to be considered a full encounter. In fact, I think the second greatest strength of this system is that it allows the DM to do anywhere from 1 to 3 or 4 encounters a day depending on how many monsters they put into combat.
Problem: Monsters feel like meatbags (especially at high levels) and lack special abilities that would make fighting them interesting for the most part.
Solution: Every monster species gets a special ability such as aggressive for orcs, and then there's a table of special abilities for elite monsters of the different types (undead, humanoids, dragons, etc.). In addition, there are special rules for taking a monster and turning it into a solo boss monster. Solo boss monsters have more hp, do more damage, receive multiple elite abilities, and have the ability to summon 1 hp minions which have a special ability that is rolled for as a group (every monster the boss summons gets the same ability). Most of the boss monster's minion's abilities are area of effect debuffs or buffs that make them just as important to deal with as the boss. Also, add rules for cleaving through minions so martials don't feel extremely weak here.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
Outside of fixing the obvious idiocies of the Grappling, Jumping, and Falling rules, WOTC should hire an economist to actually analyze the various values, costs, and incomes thrown around in the game. Barring that, hand the job to someone at WOTC who understands how to use a spreadsheet and grasps numbers, not feelings.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
The area of that spell is 502 acres. Lets say that 60% is actual arable land under cultivation. 40% would be forested, roads, settlements, or simply not arable (lakes, swamps, ponds, dragons' lairs).
So now we are working with 300 acres. A 5th level caster doubles the crop income on that much land, daily. Page 157 of the PHB states that a pound of wheat = 1 cp. There are 60 pounds of wheat in a bushel. I have seen numbers from 7 to 15 bushels of wheat were produced per acre in medieval times. Let's call it 10 bushels/acre. So:
60 pounds of wheat / bushel * 10 bushels/acre = 600 pounds / acre.
600 pounds/acre * 300 acres = 180,000 pounds of wheat.
So, a 5th level caster creates that much additional wealth every day. 180,000 pounds = 180,000 copper pieces = 1,800 GP per day additional wealth. Let's say the caster charges the lord of the manor half of that. (yeah, the lords of the manors owned the land, not the farmers).
900 GP/ day, for one 3rd level spell. Kind of great work for really low risk. Now visualize the same caster working in a high value crop, like a vineyard. Clearly out of whack with much of the economy of the game.
This is just one example of how much of a mess the stated economic values in the 5e economy are.
5th level characters are probably quite rare, so not many would be wandering around the countryside performing all this spell casting.