First and foremost, notice the quotation marks around the world "fix". This is not a thread for bashing 5e or WotC or people that play and enjoy the game. I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't love D&D 5e. However, just because it's good doesn't mean that it is perfect (I will refer you to my other thread for more info on the type of people that think that criticizing the system is attacking them/WotC). D&D 5e is a great game, but it is by no means unimprovable. There are many aspects of the game that could use revising/"fixing", and this is a thread to discuss those parts of the game.
If you want to discuss a MECHANICAL part of the game that you think is a problem that needs fixing that hasn't been discussed in the thread yet, clearly label your post showing the problem and your suggested solution.
If you want to reply to a post to suggest an alternative fix or debate the need for such a fix, be civil. Don't make personal attacks against them (i.e. calling them stupid/dumb/a hater, laughing or mocking their post, or otherwise make it personal.). This thread should be discussing/debating opinions and not the people that post their opinions.
Here is my example that most suggestions should be modeled off of in format:
Problem:Hit Points in 5e are completely and totally dependent on your class and Constitution score . . . which makes absolutely no sense given the explanation of hit points in the PHB as being a "combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck".
Solution Part 1 (fixing the class dependence aspect of this issue)Grant players an extra hit dice based off of their race/lineage. Small races (halflings, gnomes, goblins, kobolds) would get an extra 1d6, most "medium" races would get an extra d8 (Humans, Elves, Half-Elves, Tieflings, Genasi, Satyrs, etc), the tougher Medium races would get an extra 1d10 (Dwarves, Warforged, Tortles, Half-Orcs, Firbolg, Hobgoblins, etc), and the really big ones would get an extra 1d12 (Orcs, Goliaths, Centaurs, Bugbears, etc).
Solution Part 2 (fixing the Constitution dependence aspect of this issue) Allow Hit Points to be based off of two different ability scores dependent on their class, alternating the ability score every level. This would keep people from being as SAD as can be, while having the definition of HP fit how they are calculated better.
Okay, begin discussing. I'm excited to see what you think needs fixing and what you all come up with to fix it.
There's a myriad things I could write about, but for now since there's other shit I need to work on tonight, I'll simply offer an alternative fix for HP, since I have (eerily) been considering the HP Problem myself recently, especially as it pertains to levels 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3.
Alternate HP
HP scales VERY weirdly, starting out insanely low and ending outrageously high in many cases. This distorts the game, making lower-level play unusually and unnecessarily deadly whilst being one of the primary contributors to "Higher levels don't challenge players anymore!" HP needs to start higher and end lower.
Initial Proposal: Starting HP is equivalent to Constitution score plus species modifier (a relatively small fixed number). On level-up, characters gain HP equivalent to their species modifier, Hit die remain class-specific but do not affect maximum HP - certain classes are better at recovering than others, but maximum toughness is based strictly on Constitution and species. Certain classes, certain feats, and certain boons may affect HP as they do now, but overall you start with more and end with a lot less. Obviously, critter damage needs to be scaled accordingly, but a flatter HP curve solves many of 5e's multitudinous HP issues
Problem lack of meaningful choices as characters level.
Solution: Instead of set class abilities at certain levels, have a set of abilities available to the class at that level to that you get to choose from.
I like the simplicity of 5e for newer players, but I honestly wish that their was a little more complexity in the game. I don't mean increasing the amount of math involved* but increasing the number of choices players must make as their character levels. As it is most everything is decided by 3rd level.
*I am actually also ok with adding a small amount of math back into the game, but only a very small amount.
I think I agree with Golaryn and Third for an increase in options. I don't think there should be "more" in terms of subclasses and classes necessarily (subclasses seeming to be the present editions main way to give players "more"); but rather "more" within subclasses or the base classes. I think optional class features in Tasha's could have been a good start to those options, and they did at least open the door. However for my liking they would need to be done in the way where such options wouldn't be "must haves" going forward for players. This way the game can still be the entry level game Golaryn is talking about, while also giving the opportunity for additional craftwork for more experienced players.
Repeat with race/lineage/backgrouhd. The custom lineage and the gothic lineages I think are going somewhere, though they're not there yet.
I'd also say nothing I'm envisioning I'd consider a fix to D&D as I don't think the game is in any need of repair or is currently broken. Rather, I see my suggestions as ways to "enhance" the game.
Problem lack of meaningful choices as characters level.
Solution: Instead of set class abilities at certain levels, have a set of abilities available to the class at that level to that you get to choose from.
I like the simplicity of 5e for newer players, but I honestly wish that their was a little more complexity in the game. I don't mean increasing the amount of math involved* but increasing the number of choices must make as their character levels. As it is most everything is decided by 3rd level.
*I am actually also ok with adding a small amount of math back into the game, but only a very small amount.
I agree, and I was super hopeful that Tasha's and Optional Class Features would move the game in that direction, but alas. But, I think any push for such things should be made with caution. I have played Pathfinder 2e, which has a glut of such options, and it's terrible (I don't want to turn this into a PF2e hate post, but for real, it's like Paizo looked at everything that didn't work about 3e and everything that didn't work about 4e and said "what if we did both of them?"). It's a similar problem to the one feats had in 3e: there are way too many choices, and most of them are boring as all heck. D&D5e as it stands is too devoid of interesting choices as characters develop, but it's still preferable to that mess.
My actual answer to the question posed by the OP though is to completely replace the action resolution mechanic. D&D's d20 is a classic, but it's binary, flat, and most of all boring. Genesys's dice allow reasonably similar success/failure rates while also including built-in means for actions to have additional effects, both positive and negative. For the most part, it would not be difficult to just plop it into D&D, since the range of possible values for ability scores and skill ranks maps very nicely onto D&D's ability modifiers and proficiency bonus. It would need some massaging for, for example, negative ability modifiers, expertise, armor, but it's far and away more interesting than "roll one die and try to meet or beat one number."
I would like a much more varied and particularly smaller increments of upgrades available for equipment.
One small example; Armor is available as a full set right now. If it were created in a way that allowed each of the parts of armor to matter, then a player might be excited just to find a plate helm. But as it stands, players have to have the full suit, and nobody really cares whether they are wearing a helmet or not, or their greaves, or pauldrons, or ...
It also doesn't matter what sort of quality the armor is fashioned. An old suit of armor is just as good as an exquisitely made suit of armor is. If there was some way to capture this variability, DMs could give out smaller increments of rewards and the players would feel they were making progress.
I just can't come up with any system that would not sound unwieldly to others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I will respectfully disagree with Genesys' story dice. On top of being super difficult to actually find anywhere save online, the Genesys dice system is super cluttered and slows action resolution. It also invites a ton of time-consuming horse-trading with the DM, since the results of any given roll are super fuzzy and unclear.
Now to be fair, I've not played Genesys yet, but a friend of mine's been working on building an online Genesys game so I've been digging through the rules. I'm super ambivalent about that dice system they're so proud of, especially since it puts enormous constraints on character building. The Dice Tell A Story(C) in Genesys, but your character sure doesn't, since the balance point for Genesys dice is so fragile and narrow. Adding even just one single bonus or setback die is a big chonkin' deal, and because the system is so narrowly tuned there's not a lot of ways the game is willing to let you fiddle with it. Most of the system's Talents (i.e. feats/Cool Abilities) are just narrative fluffery with no actual mechanical impact unless your GM is feeling generous.
I do agree that the d20 needs to go. 3d6 is a classic in other games for a reason, it works perfectly fine in GURPS once you make the mental twist of "lower is better", but I'd be down for trying most anything that improves the game's notorious swinginess.
I have issues with equipment and proficiencies, but that would take tol long to write, and it's not that they're currently bad so much as sub-optimal... heck, I'm 92 pages deep into writing a book about that, before adding artwork.
As for HP, I agree that early levels are too deadly, but I don't really care so much about later levels. I feel that this could be fixed literally by starting a player at double HP. By level 2, you've cleared the gap and are safe.
With that said, Professor Dungeon Master has a pretty decent fix (though I generally disagree with him on everything else.) Just drop your early level damage (be says drop all HP and damage, but that's a different point). You're a new adventurer who likely isn't trying to kill trained guards. Give the enemies weaker hits, or just let them hit with dice and no modifiers.
I'm surprised that after several heated threads about race based stat bonuses being bad this one suggests race based qualities related to resilience would be good. That aside, I think changing the definition of HP slightly (or clarifying it a bit) to being a measure of withstanding attempted trauma would be easier and, everything else remaining the same, more apt than changing how they are calculated. They're part of class balance, they're part of combat balance, and the similarity beween monster and PC HP calculation keeps it simple for DMs who like their NPCs to have class levels (effectively a character sheet instead of a monster stat block) - I'm not in favour of the latter, but it seems to be a relatively common practice. Some suggestions would seem to require a number of other changes to the system, I don't know if it's worth the effort.
Personal pet peeve:
Problem: current health has no bearing on a character's ability to act, nor does having been on the brink of death (meaning characters can be restored to one hit point over and over again without meaningful effect)
Solution: when current hp are reduced to less than 1/3 of the maximum, apply one level of fatigue to the character; do the same whenever a character falls unconscious as a result of taking damage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm surprised that after several heated threads about race based stat bonuses being bad this one suggests race based qualities related to resilience would be good.
Different topic, not related. My want of "floating ASIs" is completely detached from my want of races influencing extra Hit Dice. We already have size determining HP in 5e, so it just makes sense to apply at least part of that to races/lineages.
Problem: current health has no bearing on a character's ability to act, nor does having been on the brink of death (meaning characters can be restored to one hit point over and over again without meaningful effect)
Solution: when current hp are reduced to less than 1/3 of the maximum, apply one level of fatigue to the character; do the same whenever a character falls unconscious as a result of taking damage.
This does sometimes annoy me, but due to the strange definition of HP in 5e, I could see an argument for keeping it more or less as is. I personally would change how the Unconscious condition functions, as there's a difference between being knocked unconscious during a fight and just falling asleep during a night's rest. I might add a stage to being at 0 hp for before a character is fully knocked out where they're just functioning less effectively, instead of the yoyo that currently is the conscious-and-fighting to unconscious-and-dying system in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I will respectfully disagree with Genesys' story dice. On top of being super difficult to actually find anywhere save online, the Genesys dice system is super cluttered and slows action resolution. It also invites a ton of time-consuming horse-trading with the DM, since the results of any given roll are super fuzzy and unclear.
I don't understand what you mean by "horse-trading." The results of any given roll aren't fuzzy at all, they're extremely well-defined. There are only two things to keep track of: whether or not the action succeeded, and how much advantage/threat was generated. As long as players keep in mind the very few basic ways to spend advantage/threat, combat isn't slowed down any more than it already is by, for example, spellcasting. Outside of combat, the number of checks being made is much lower, and it's good to spend some time discussing potential outcomes.
Now to be fair, I've not played Genesys yet, but a friend of mine's been working on building an online Genesys game so I've been digging through the rules. I'm super ambivalent about that dice system they're so proud of, especially since it puts enormous constraints on character building. The Dice Tell A Story(C) in Genesys, but your character sure doesn't, since the balance point for Genesys dice is so fragile and narrow. Adding even just one single bonus or setback die is a big chonkin' deal, and because the system is so narrowly tuned there's not a lot of ways the game is willing to let you fiddle with it. Most of the system's Talents (i.e. feats/Cool Abilities) are just narrative fluffery with no actual mechanical impact unless your GM is feeling generous.
I do agree that the d20 needs to go. 3d6 is a classic in other games for a reason, it works perfectly fine in GURPS once you make the mental twist of "lower is better", but I'd be down for trying most anything that improves the game's notorious swinginess.
I don't understand what you mean by "horse-trading." The results of any given roll aren't fuzzy at all, they're extremely well-defined. There are only two things to keep track of: whether or not the action succeeded, and how much advantage/threat was generated. As long as players keep in mind the very few basic ways to spend advantage/threat, combat isn't slowed down any more than it already is by, for example, spellcasting. Outside of combat, the number of checks being made is much lower, and it's good to spend some time discussing potential outcomes.
Boost and setback dice aren't really that significant. They're nice/bad to have, but D&D's advantage/disadvantage does a lot more to shift probabilities around. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, since you haven't played it yet, but I sincerely have no idea what you mean by narrow tuning, especially in context of D&D, for which narrow tuning is not only a specific design goal (bounded accuracy) but also one of the best things about 5e. Further, while I'm not really interested in a conversation about Genesys's talents, because that's not relevant to my position in this thread (which solely involves the core action resolution mechanic), I did decide to take a look at some of the talents described in the core rulebook, and every single one of the ones I looked at (all the Tier 1 talents) had real, mechanical features. The only one that could possibly be construed as relying on GM generosity only allows its feature "in polite company" as determined by the GM, which, let's be real, is usually going to be pretty cut and dry. Five of them (which is more than 20% of all Tier 1 talents) involve adding or removing boost/setback dice, which feels like quite a few ways to "let you fiddle with it." In contrast, D&D has... expertise and dragonmarked intuition dice, and that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
Apropos of nothing, has the forum software changed? I used to be able to insert responses into the block quote and then unquote them, leaving what follows still in the block quote, but now it just unquotes literally everything past what I've highlighted.
I totally agree with the fact that HP at low levels put you at a risk. But I kind of like that. My gripe is more with when you reach higher levels. At this point, the risk of dying is almost gone and without the risk of dying, I find that the game loses its nerve. The way I've approached the HP problem is I'm using a house rule on instant death.
BASIC RULES:
"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."
I've changed this to be "When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your max hit die + hp bonuses + 1 hp per level". I'd rather use this predictive rule than the random "massive damage" rule from DMG as that rule is "unreadable" thus the player's do not know when they're at risk or not - they're at risk all the time...maybe.
Ex: A Fighter in 12th level with 18 in constitution dies if they take damage that puts them below 24 hp (10 HD + 4 CON + 10 LVL). This keeps the nerve in the game for me, even at higher levels.
Problem HP are too high for some classes and too low for others. FIX every class uses a d6 plus con bonus for HP.
Problem, Not enough death due death saves. Fix. If you hit -10 HP your dead.
Problem, No death due aging affects. Fix. Create a max age chart. I use one based on the 1E chart.
Problem. Undead are not scary. Fix. Add in level drain to certain undead. Con save of DC 15 for Tier 2 or under. DC 20 for the other tier. Lose a level if fail.
Lowering the Instant Death threshold is an interesting idea. Definitely puts a crimp in the "ehh, he's fine, pick him up when we're done" nonsense. I know death saves are supposed to accomplish that, and they can, but the DM has to be willing to attack a downed character and forced failed saves in order for death saves to do their job. A lot of DMs aren't willing to do that. Though I suppose the DMs unwilling to kick a man when he's down are also going to be a lot less willing to work with Massive Damage rules. So...maybe a variant rule in the next book, or simply a good houserule for those looking to challenge their players, I suppose.
Another thing I've tried to do for a long time, but I've never been able to get the entire alternate ruleset figured out...
PROBLEM: Weapon combat is samey and boring, with very few options beyond "I just hit it again" to deal basic damage, while spellcasters get to enjoy tremendous tactical versatility even with simply cantrips.
PROPOSAL: Maneuvers/the Superiority system should be inherent to all martial classes - if you're trained enough with weapons to have a Fighting Style as your specialty, you're trained enough to have Superiority. Any class that gets a fighting style as a core class feature gains three maneuvers and three Superiority die. Subclasses that add a fighting style (Swords bard, Bladesinger wizard, and the like), gain two maneuvers and two Superiority die. The Battle Master fighter (and other classes/subclasses that specifically add maneuvers) grant expanded access to maneuvers rather than exclusive access. Martial Adept improves this (and requires existing maneuvers as a prerequisite).
All weapons also get their own unique maneuver, which a character with Superiority die can use in place of one of their own while wielding that weapon, to make choice of weapon more impactful. Classes/subclasses can also grant unique maneuvers (or other uses for Superiority) to drive their identities.
Martial weapon proficiency implies special training to make use of these expanded options and is difficult to get outside of martial classes. Options like the default Shove, Trip, and Disarm are rolled into the Superiority system.
Martial/weapon-y classes with no fighting style (rogue, barbarian) may gain Superiority, or they may not. Haven't decided yet. If they do not, they gain abilities that accentuate their combat instead (such as Reckless Attacks) in exchange for a simpler playstyle without the depth of options afforded by Superiority.
Lowering the Instant Death threshold is an interesting idea. Definitely puts a crimp in the "ehh, he's fine, pick him up when we're done" nonsense. I know death saves are supposed to accomplish that, and they can, but the DM has to be willing to attack a downed character and forced failed saves in order for death saves to do their job. A lot of DMs aren't willing to do that. Though I suppose the DMs unwilling to kick a man when he's down are also going to be a lot less willing to work with Massive Damage rules. So...maybe a variant rule in the next book, or simply a good houserule for those looking to challenge their players, I suppose.
Another thing I've tried to do for a long time, but I've never been able to get the entire alternate ruleset figured out...
PROBLEM: Weapon combat is samey and boring, with very few options beyond "I just hit it again" to deal basic damage, while spellcasters get to enjoy tremendous tactical versatility even with simply cantrips.
PROPOSAL: Maneuvers/the Superiority system should be inherent to all martial classes - if you're trained enough with weapons to have a Fighting Style as your specialty, you're trained enough to have Superiority. Any class that gets a fighting style as a core class feature gains three maneuvers and three Superiority die. Subclasses that add a fighting style (Swords bard, Bladesinger wizard, and the like), gain two maneuvers and two Superiority die. The Battle Master fighter (and other classes/subclasses that specifically add maneuvers) grant expanded access to maneuvers rather than exclusive access. Martial Adept improves this (and requires existing maneuvers as a prerequisite).
All weapons also get their own unique maneuver, which a character with Superiority die can use in place of one of their own while wielding that weapon, to make choice of weapon more impactful. Classes/subclasses can also grant unique maneuvers (or other uses for Superiority) to drive their identities.
Martial weapon proficiency implies special training to make use of these expanded options and is difficult to get outside of martial classes. Options like the default Shove, Trip, and Disarm are rolled into the Superiority system.
Martial/weapon-y classes with no fighting style (rogue, barbarian) may gain Superiority, or they may not. Haven't decided yet. If they do not, they gain abilities that accentuate their combat instead (such as Reckless Attacks) in exchange for a simpler playstyle without the depth of options afforded by Superiority.
I feel like they wanted to move closer to that idea with the new Feats in Tashas. A Fighter or Pally might be trained in every type of martial weapon, but he or she can further specialise in fighting with Spears with Piercer, or with Axes by taking Slasher.
As for the versatility of Magic compared to Weapons, thats a fundamental problem of Tools designed for one job and one Job only. You can use an Axe to cut down a tree or gut a goblin, but it will not be that useful sewing a cloak. On the other hand, your Fireball might melt an iceberg, but you won't CREATE one that way. So Magic is not an Axe, but more like the steel that BECAME an Axe instead of a Shovel or a Door.
Problem: Two Weapon Fighting. Too many costs, little benefit besides rule of cool.
Solution: I'd change Duel Wielding and make it so you effectively don't use your bonus action, I think. Or make a different feat. Require the Fighting Style so that its not just something you can easily snag for everyone at level 1.
Problem: Short rest heavy classes- bardic inspirations, ki, warlock spell slots, etc
Solution: "Stamina" and "Mana" potions. Make them with a herbalism kit. Uses healing surges to keep things a bit in check.
Problem: Uneven saves. Especially Charisma and Intelligence. Athletics/Acrobatics practically required for melee characters.
Solution: Readjust what Wisdom can protect against - subtle effects and charms are Wisdom, outright mind control is Charisma. Make Grappling and shoves a Strength save, not a skill check. Seeing past illusions is a Intelligence save, not an Investigation check. While we're at it, better explanations of when to use Investigate and when to use Perception
Problem: Social rules and non-dungeon exploration rules are really super light.
Solution: Not much to it but to create new rules for social conflicts and encounters.
Problem: Perform is redundant in light of instrument proficiencies, and costs a skill slot.
Solution: Perform is no longer a skill. Instead, dancing and singing are "tool" proficiencies.
Lowering the Instant Death threshold is an interesting idea. Definitely puts a crimp in the "ehh, he's fine, pick him up when we're done" nonsense. I know death saves are supposed to accomplish that, and they can, but the DM has to be willing to attack a downed character and forced failed saves in order for death saves to do their job. A lot of DMs aren't willing to do that. Though I suppose the DMs unwilling to kick a man when he's down are also going to be a lot less willing to work with Massive Damage rules. So...maybe a variant rule in the next book, or simply a good houserule for those looking to challenge their players, I suppose.
I think the easiest fix for the whac-a-mole type combat would be to bring back negative hit points, so if you do 30 damage to someone with 10 hp remaining, they won't be back up and fighting after a single level 1 healing word. Then maybe just change a failed death save to be more damage, and you die at -hp.
@yurei, if you want less samey martial combat, either the 3.5e Book of Seven Swords or 4e martial classes have a lot of stealable features.
On the original question, it really depends on what things you decide are problems; a lot of the problems are themselves the result of trying to fix some other problem.
Problem: class balance depends heavily on encounters per day (if there's only one encounter, people can go nova with spells and other long rest abilities) and encounter length (classes that derive more of their power from consumable resources are stronger in short encounters, weaker in long)
Solution: the easy solution is to give everyone the same mix, but this has already been tried and rejected (4th edition), and it's not clear if there's a solution that would be broadly acceptable. One possibility is to give casters more spells per day (at least at low levels) but limit how fast they can use those spells.
Problem: Action Economy heavily favors hordes of weenie monsters
Solution: either give more powerful monsters enormous resistances, or discard bounded accuracy (this wasn't a problem in 3e or 4e, because they just scaled DCs through the roof). Either of these options has its own problems, however.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
First and foremost, notice the quotation marks around the world "fix". This is not a thread for bashing 5e or WotC or people that play and enjoy the game. I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't love D&D 5e. However, just because it's good doesn't mean that it is perfect (I will refer you to my other thread for more info on the type of people that think that criticizing the system is attacking them/WotC). D&D 5e is a great game, but it is by no means unimprovable. There are many aspects of the game that could use revising/"fixing", and this is a thread to discuss those parts of the game.
If you want to discuss a MECHANICAL part of the game that you think is a problem that needs fixing that hasn't been discussed in the thread yet, clearly label your post showing the problem and your suggested solution.
If you want to reply to a post to suggest an alternative fix or debate the need for such a fix, be civil. Don't make personal attacks against them (i.e. calling them stupid/dumb/a hater, laughing or mocking their post, or otherwise make it personal.). This thread should be discussing/debating opinions and not the people that post their opinions.
Here is my example that most suggestions should be modeled off of in format:
Problem: Hit Points in 5e are completely and totally dependent on your class and Constitution score . . . which makes absolutely no sense given the explanation of hit points in the PHB as being a "combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck".
Solution Part 1 (fixing the class dependence aspect of this issue) Grant players an extra hit dice based off of their race/lineage. Small races (halflings, gnomes, goblins, kobolds) would get an extra 1d6, most "medium" races would get an extra d8 (Humans, Elves, Half-Elves, Tieflings, Genasi, Satyrs, etc), the tougher Medium races would get an extra 1d10 (Dwarves, Warforged, Tortles, Half-Orcs, Firbolg, Hobgoblins, etc), and the really big ones would get an extra 1d12 (Orcs, Goliaths, Centaurs, Bugbears, etc).
Solution Part 2 (fixing the Constitution dependence aspect of this issue) Allow Hit Points to be based off of two different ability scores dependent on their class, alternating the ability score every level. This would keep people from being as SAD as can be, while having the definition of HP fit how they are calculated better.
Okay, begin discussing. I'm excited to see what you think needs fixing and what you all come up with to fix it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Man. Playing with fire on this one, Third.
There's a myriad things I could write about, but for now since there's other shit I need to work on tonight, I'll simply offer an alternative fix for HP, since I have (eerily) been considering the HP Problem myself recently, especially as it pertains to levels 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3.
Alternate HP
HP scales VERY weirdly, starting out insanely low and ending outrageously high in many cases. This distorts the game, making lower-level play unusually and unnecessarily deadly whilst being one of the primary contributors to "Higher levels don't challenge players anymore!" HP needs to start higher and end lower.
Initial Proposal: Starting HP is equivalent to Constitution score plus species modifier (a relatively small fixed number). On level-up, characters gain HP equivalent to their species modifier, Hit die remain class-specific but do not affect maximum HP - certain classes are better at recovering than others, but maximum toughness is based strictly on Constitution and species. Certain classes, certain feats, and certain boons may affect HP as they do now, but overall you start with more and end with a lot less. Obviously, critter damage needs to be scaled accordingly, but a flatter HP curve solves many of 5e's multitudinous HP issues
Please do not contact or message me.
Problem lack of meaningful choices as characters level.
Solution: Instead of set class abilities at certain levels, have a set of abilities available to the class at that level to that you get to choose from.
I like the simplicity of 5e for newer players, but I honestly wish that their was a little more complexity in the game. I don't mean increasing the amount of math involved* but increasing the number of choices players must make as their character levels. As it is most everything is decided by 3rd level.
*I am actually also ok with adding a small amount of math back into the game, but only a very small amount.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think I agree with Golaryn and Third for an increase in options. I don't think there should be "more" in terms of subclasses and classes necessarily (subclasses seeming to be the present editions main way to give players "more"); but rather "more" within subclasses or the base classes. I think optional class features in Tasha's could have been a good start to those options, and they did at least open the door. However for my liking they would need to be done in the way where such options wouldn't be "must haves" going forward for players. This way the game can still be the entry level game Golaryn is talking about, while also giving the opportunity for additional craftwork for more experienced players.
Repeat with race/lineage/backgrouhd. The custom lineage and the gothic lineages I think are going somewhere, though they're not there yet.
I'd also say nothing I'm envisioning I'd consider a fix to D&D as I don't think the game is in any need of repair or is currently broken. Rather, I see my suggestions as ways to "enhance" the game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree, and I was super hopeful that Tasha's and Optional Class Features would move the game in that direction, but alas. But, I think any push for such things should be made with caution. I have played Pathfinder 2e, which has a glut of such options, and it's terrible (I don't want to turn this into a PF2e hate post, but for real, it's like Paizo looked at everything that didn't work about 3e and everything that didn't work about 4e and said "what if we did both of them?"). It's a similar problem to the one feats had in 3e: there are way too many choices, and most of them are boring as all heck. D&D5e as it stands is too devoid of interesting choices as characters develop, but it's still preferable to that mess.
My actual answer to the question posed by the OP though is to completely replace the action resolution mechanic. D&D's d20 is a classic, but it's binary, flat, and most of all boring. Genesys's dice allow reasonably similar success/failure rates while also including built-in means for actions to have additional effects, both positive and negative. For the most part, it would not be difficult to just plop it into D&D, since the range of possible values for ability scores and skill ranks maps very nicely onto D&D's ability modifiers and proficiency bonus. It would need some massaging for, for example, negative ability modifiers, expertise, armor, but it's far and away more interesting than "roll one die and try to meet or beat one number."
I would like a much more varied and particularly smaller increments of upgrades available for equipment.
One small example; Armor is available as a full set right now. If it were created in a way that allowed each of the parts of armor to matter, then a player might be excited just to find a plate helm. But as it stands, players have to have the full suit, and nobody really cares whether they are wearing a helmet or not, or their greaves, or pauldrons, or ...
It also doesn't matter what sort of quality the armor is fashioned. An old suit of armor is just as good as an exquisitely made suit of armor is. If there was some way to capture this variability, DMs could give out smaller increments of rewards and the players would feel they were making progress.
I just can't come up with any system that would not sound unwieldly to others.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I will respectfully disagree with Genesys' story dice. On top of being super difficult to actually find anywhere save online, the Genesys dice system is super cluttered and slows action resolution. It also invites a ton of time-consuming horse-trading with the DM, since the results of any given roll are super fuzzy and unclear.
Now to be fair, I've not played Genesys yet, but a friend of mine's been working on building an online Genesys game so I've been digging through the rules. I'm super ambivalent about that dice system they're so proud of, especially since it puts enormous constraints on character building. The Dice Tell A Story(C) in Genesys, but your character sure doesn't, since the balance point for Genesys dice is so fragile and narrow. Adding even just one single bonus or setback die is a big chonkin' deal, and because the system is so narrowly tuned there's not a lot of ways the game is willing to let you fiddle with it. Most of the system's Talents (i.e. feats/Cool Abilities) are just narrative fluffery with no actual mechanical impact unless your GM is feeling generous.
I do agree that the d20 needs to go. 3d6 is a classic in other games for a reason, it works perfectly fine in GURPS once you make the mental twist of "lower is better", but I'd be down for trying most anything that improves the game's notorious swinginess.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have issues with equipment and proficiencies, but that would take tol long to write, and it's not that they're currently bad so much as sub-optimal... heck, I'm 92 pages deep into writing a book about that, before adding artwork.
As for HP, I agree that early levels are too deadly, but I don't really care so much about later levels. I feel that this could be fixed literally by starting a player at double HP. By level 2, you've cleared the gap and are safe.
With that said, Professor Dungeon Master has a pretty decent fix (though I generally disagree with him on everything else.) Just drop your early level damage (be says drop all HP and damage, but that's a different point). You're a new adventurer who likely isn't trying to kill trained guards. Give the enemies weaker hits, or just let them hit with dice and no modifiers.
I'm surprised that after several heated threads about race based stat bonuses being bad this one suggests race based qualities related to resilience would be good. That aside, I think changing the definition of HP slightly (or clarifying it a bit) to being a measure of withstanding attempted trauma would be easier and, everything else remaining the same, more apt than changing how they are calculated. They're part of class balance, they're part of combat balance, and the similarity beween monster and PC HP calculation keeps it simple for DMs who like their NPCs to have class levels (effectively a character sheet instead of a monster stat block) - I'm not in favour of the latter, but it seems to be a relatively common practice. Some suggestions would seem to require a number of other changes to the system, I don't know if it's worth the effort.
Personal pet peeve:
Problem: current health has no bearing on a character's ability to act, nor does having been on the brink of death (meaning characters can be restored to one hit point over and over again without meaningful effect)
Solution: when current hp are reduced to less than 1/3 of the maximum, apply one level of fatigue to the character; do the same whenever a character falls unconscious as a result of taking damage
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Different topic, not related. My want of "floating ASIs" is completely detached from my want of races influencing extra Hit Dice. We already have size determining HP in 5e, so it just makes sense to apply at least part of that to races/lineages.
This does sometimes annoy me, but due to the strange definition of HP in 5e, I could see an argument for keeping it more or less as is. I personally would change how the Unconscious condition functions, as there's a difference between being knocked unconscious during a fight and just falling asleep during a night's rest. I might add a stage to being at 0 hp for before a character is fully knocked out where they're just functioning less effectively, instead of the yoyo that currently is the conscious-and-fighting to unconscious-and-dying system in 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't understand what you mean by "horse-trading." The results of any given roll aren't fuzzy at all, they're extremely well-defined. There are only two things to keep track of: whether or not the action succeeded, and how much advantage/threat was generated. As long as players keep in mind the very few basic ways to spend advantage/threat, combat isn't slowed down any more than it already is by, for example, spellcasting. Outside of combat, the number of checks being made is much lower, and it's good to spend some time discussing potential outcomes.
Boost and setback dice aren't really that significant. They're nice/bad to have, but D&D's advantage/disadvantage does a lot more to shift probabilities around. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, since you haven't played it yet, but I sincerely have no idea what you mean by narrow tuning, especially in context of D&D, for which narrow tuning is not only a specific design goal (bounded accuracy) but also one of the best things about 5e. Further, while I'm not really interested in a conversation about Genesys's talents, because that's not relevant to my position in this thread (which solely involves the core action resolution mechanic), I did decide to take a look at some of the talents described in the core rulebook, and every single one of the ones I looked at (all the Tier 1 talents) had real, mechanical features. The only one that could possibly be construed as relying on GM generosity only allows its feature "in polite company" as determined by the GM, which, let's be real, is usually going to be pretty cut and dry. Five of them (which is more than 20% of all Tier 1 talents) involve adding or removing boost/setback dice, which feels like quite a few ways to "let you fiddle with it." In contrast, D&D has... expertise and dragonmarked intuition dice, and that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
Apropos of nothing, has the forum software changed? I used to be able to insert responses into the block quote and then unquote them, leaving what follows still in the block quote, but now it just unquotes literally everything past what I've highlighted.
I totally agree with the fact that HP at low levels put you at a risk. But I kind of like that. My gripe is more with when you reach higher levels. At this point, the risk of dying is almost gone and without the risk of dying, I find that the game loses its nerve. The way I've approached the HP problem is I'm using a house rule on instant death.
BASIC RULES:
"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."
I've changed this to be "When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your max hit die + hp bonuses + 1 hp per level". I'd rather use this predictive rule than the random "massive damage" rule from DMG as that rule is "unreadable" thus the player's do not know when they're at risk or not - they're at risk all the time...maybe.
Ex: A Fighter in 12th level with 18 in constitution dies if they take damage that puts them below 24 hp (10 HD + 4 CON + 10 LVL). This keeps the nerve in the game for me, even at higher levels.
Problem HP are too high for some classes and too low for others. FIX every class uses a d6 plus con bonus for HP.
Problem, Not enough death due death saves. Fix. If you hit -10 HP your dead.
Problem, No death due aging affects. Fix. Create a max age chart. I use one based on the 1E chart.
Problem. Undead are not scary. Fix. Add in level drain to certain undead. Con save of DC 15 for Tier 2 or under. DC 20 for the other tier. Lose a level if fail.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Lowering the Instant Death threshold is an interesting idea. Definitely puts a crimp in the "ehh, he's fine, pick him up when we're done" nonsense. I know death saves are supposed to accomplish that, and they can, but the DM has to be willing to attack a downed character and forced failed saves in order for death saves to do their job. A lot of DMs aren't willing to do that. Though I suppose the DMs unwilling to kick a man when he's down are also going to be a lot less willing to work with Massive Damage rules. So...maybe a variant rule in the next book, or simply a good houserule for those looking to challenge their players, I suppose.
Another thing I've tried to do for a long time, but I've never been able to get the entire alternate ruleset figured out...
PROBLEM: Weapon combat is samey and boring, with very few options beyond "I just hit it again" to deal basic damage, while spellcasters get to enjoy tremendous tactical versatility even with simply cantrips.
PROPOSAL: Maneuvers/the Superiority system should be inherent to all martial classes - if you're trained enough with weapons to have a Fighting Style as your specialty, you're trained enough to have Superiority. Any class that gets a fighting style as a core class feature gains three maneuvers and three Superiority die. Subclasses that add a fighting style (Swords bard, Bladesinger wizard, and the like), gain two maneuvers and two Superiority die. The Battle Master fighter (and other classes/subclasses that specifically add maneuvers) grant expanded access to maneuvers rather than exclusive access. Martial Adept improves this (and requires existing maneuvers as a prerequisite).
All weapons also get their own unique maneuver, which a character with Superiority die can use in place of one of their own while wielding that weapon, to make choice of weapon more impactful. Classes/subclasses can also grant unique maneuvers (or other uses for Superiority) to drive their identities.
Martial weapon proficiency implies special training to make use of these expanded options and is difficult to get outside of martial classes. Options like the default Shove, Trip, and Disarm are rolled into the Superiority system.
Martial/weapon-y classes with no fighting style (rogue, barbarian) may gain Superiority, or they may not. Haven't decided yet. If they do not, they gain abilities that accentuate their combat instead (such as Reckless Attacks) in exchange for a simpler playstyle without the depth of options afforded by Superiority.
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel like they wanted to move closer to that idea with the new Feats in Tashas. A Fighter or Pally might be trained in every type of martial weapon, but he or she can further specialise in fighting with Spears with Piercer, or with Axes by taking Slasher.
As for the versatility of Magic compared to Weapons, thats a fundamental problem of Tools designed for one job and one Job only. You can use an Axe to cut down a tree or gut a goblin, but it will not be that useful sewing a cloak. On the other hand, your Fireball might melt an iceberg, but you won't CREATE one that way. So Magic is not an Axe, but more like the steel that BECAME an Axe instead of a Shovel or a Door.
#OpenDnD
Problem: Two Weapon Fighting. Too many costs, little benefit besides rule of cool.
Solution: I'd change Duel Wielding and make it so you effectively don't use your bonus action, I think. Or make a different feat. Require the Fighting Style so that its not just something you can easily snag for everyone at level 1.
Problem: Short rest heavy classes- bardic inspirations, ki, warlock spell slots, etc
Solution: "Stamina" and "Mana" potions. Make them with a herbalism kit. Uses healing surges to keep things a bit in check.
Problem: Uneven saves. Especially Charisma and Intelligence. Athletics/Acrobatics practically required for melee characters.
Solution: Readjust what Wisdom can protect against - subtle effects and charms are Wisdom, outright mind control is Charisma. Make Grappling and shoves a Strength save, not a skill check. Seeing past illusions is a Intelligence save, not an Investigation check. While we're at it, better explanations of when to use Investigate and when to use Perception
Problem: Social rules and non-dungeon exploration rules are really super light.
Solution: Not much to it but to create new rules for social conflicts and encounters.
Problem: Perform is redundant in light of instrument proficiencies, and costs a skill slot.
Solution: Perform is no longer a skill. Instead, dancing and singing are "tool" proficiencies.
I think the easiest fix for the whac-a-mole type combat would be to bring back negative hit points, so if you do 30 damage to someone with 10 hp remaining, they won't be back up and fighting after a single level 1 healing word. Then maybe just change a failed death save to be more damage, and you die at -hp.
@yurei, if you want less samey martial combat, either the 3.5e Book of Seven Swords or 4e martial classes have a lot of stealable features.
On the original question, it really depends on what things you decide are problems; a lot of the problems are themselves the result of trying to fix some other problem.
Problem: class balance depends heavily on encounters per day (if there's only one encounter, people can go nova with spells and other long rest abilities) and encounter length (classes that derive more of their power from consumable resources are stronger in short encounters, weaker in long)
Solution: the easy solution is to give everyone the same mix, but this has already been tried and rejected (4th edition), and it's not clear if there's a solution that would be broadly acceptable. One possibility is to give casters more spells per day (at least at low levels) but limit how fast they can use those spells.
Problem: Action Economy heavily favors hordes of weenie monsters
Solution: either give more powerful monsters enormous resistances, or discard bounded accuracy (this wasn't a problem in 3e or 4e, because they just scaled DCs through the roof). Either of these options has its own problems, however.
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.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is taking a mechanic from 3.5e:
Problem: Weapons in 5e have very little variety.
Solution: Change up the critical hit mechanics. Similar to 3.5, make it so that different weapons have different critical hit chances and damage.
Doesn't Pathfinder have a thing like that, too? Where non-magic weapons can have higher chances for critting.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms