# YOU are in charge of the next PHB! What do you change?



## Whizbang Dustyboots

By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.

So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.

What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?

_What do you do?_


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?



Well yes to all of that for starters. Let's bullet-point this shiz:

*General:*

Alignment is barely mentioned
Short rest is down to 10 mins
*Races:*

Lineages replace races
Darkvision becomes low-light vision by default
Variant Tiefling is default Tiefling
Dragonborn use the new Dragonborn approach
Halfings inexplicably missing from index/table of contents and last in race chapter despite beginning with H in effort to give halfing fans a heart attack
Gnomes replaced with 4E-style gnomes
Fairies are in
Half-Orcs are out
Orcs are in
*Classes/archetypes:*

Loads of +stat mod or usuable stat mod times stuff changed to proficiency (no brainer) - would need some tweaks in a few places
All "major" customizations moved to L3 (I could be argued into L1).
In most cases different subclasses but we'll be here all day if I list them all.
Clerics broken into two customization parts - major customization is whether they're a melee, zapping, or support/utility-spells Cleric, minor customization is god (which just influences spell list). God is L1, major customization is L3.
Wizards customization changed so specialist wizard is just one thing, but the best-designed specialist broken out into their own subclasses (Diviner hilariously). Reduced to sane number of subclasses as result.
Fighters redesigned so Battlemaster stuff is part of core Fighter design - every Fighter archetype in the PHB gets access to manuevers/dice, BM just gets a lot more
Monks redesigned and refluffed to clearly just be martial artists, core Monk chassis severely stripped down, most of the weird features removed and given to a sort of Shaolin Monk equivalent subclass. Better alternatives to stunning strike provided. Design space from removing weird Shaolin-esque features used to make archetypes work better.
Sorcerers redesigned to use purely points-based casting - no more weird mix of slots and points.
Ranger made less rubbish, Tashas options made default assumptions for the most part, totally different subclasses default
*Skills*

Skills mechanics heavily re-worked
Plot-point style mechanic built in to game to allow people to "take 10" on skills pretty regularly but not constantly
Detailed guidance on what pass/fail on skills actually means
Social skills particularly detailed re: default assumptions about when you can use them, and what they can achieve, and what pass/fail is likely to actually mean in a given situation
Clear information that suggests DMs should not be asking you to roll the same skill repeatedly
Default situation is that failure is not catastrophic clearly stated
*Combat*

Surprise changed to not be dumb and make no sense.
Gotta go now but maybe more later.


----------



## Argyle King

I'm not sure how the changes I would want to make would be possible given the established limitations in the OP.

I would like to see structural changes to how monsters and encounters are built. 

I might consider pushing the game back out to being 30 levels and spreading the idea of bounded accuracy across more decision-making points for players.

Proficiency dice would likely become the standard way of doing things rather than a flat proficiency bonus. (Gaining double proficiency in a skill would have the effect of upgrading your proficiency die for that skill. For example, a d4 would become a d6.)

Tool proficiency would be done very differently. (I'm not sure how yet. Currently, it just seems kinda tacked on without much thought toward how it actually functions in-game.)

There would be three types of rest: quick (5-10 minutes); short (1 hour, like now); and long (8 hours).

I would try to find a middle ground for racial ability scores. I like some of the flexibility of Tasha's, but I also believe that -in a world with tangible physical differences between species- there are also tangible differences. So, I might do something like give each race one ability which is set and also give them a floating point to place into a choice of abilities. I think late-4E started doing something like that, and it worked. 

Alternatively, I may decide to get away from ability score bonuses at all and simply give racial abilities (i.e. Dragonborn breath weapon) to each race.

Resistances would have more granularity. Right now, I believe it's too binary. It's difficult to measure degrees of resistance to something.


----------



## King Babar

I would fix the Index, because whoever organized that damn thing is a sadist.


----------



## Shiroiken

Race

Standardize choice of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability score improvements
Human gain secondary ability to make up for change (feat equivalent)

Add Culture, removing non-genetic abilities
All races have access to same cultures, based on setting limitations

Classes

Remove frontloading
Assume characters start at level 3, with 1-2 as apprentice tier
Make Bard a half-caster
Equipment

Balance the armor and weapons!
Remove Potion of Healing from standard equipment
Replace with Medicinal Herbs, which take 1 minute for the same effect

Remove Healer's Kit ability (used for Medicine checks instead)
Customizing Characters

Balance Feats to be equal to +2 in primary ability (GWM and PAM level is the goal)
Reduce Sharpshooter to double short range and reduce cover bonus by 3 (min 0)

Combat

Allow Bonus Action to be used as an Action
Second Item Interaction is Bonus Action
Donning Shield is Bonus Action
Spells

Remove scaling on cantrips
Slowly add more low level spells slots to make up for it

Expand Ritual spells
Remove Concentration from specific (bad) spells


----------



## Aldarc

I have attempted to answer the OP about 4-5 times now, and I every time I ended up making a new edition, so I give up.


----------



## Minigiant

General
Alignment is changed
Wrestling, Masquerade, Dragon, and Humanity alignment added as options
Assumption based on completely new setting.
Base Assumption of 6-8 encounters a day. Rules for 1 and 15 encounter days.

Races
Races renamed as Lineages
Races become less Rubberforehead human.
Half Elf, Half Orc, Mul, and Quartling become sublineages of Elf, Orc, Dwarf, and Halfling respectively.
Goblin, Hobgoblin, and Bugbear added to PHB.
Kobold added to PHB.
Low light and nightvision added
Small lineages get +2 AC.
Variant rules for Shadowtouched or Feytouched.

Classes
Artificer in PHB.
Fighter split into 3 classes: Fighter, Weaponmaster?, and Warlord
Cleric split into Cleric and Invoker?
Subclass starts at level 2 for everyone.
Cleric, Invoker, and Paladin can share some subclasses.
Sorcerer and Wizard can share some subclasses
Druid and Ranger can share some subclasses
Fighter, Weaponmaster?, and Warlord can share some subclasses.
All classes have 3 options for resources.
Primeval Awareness replaced by TCOE variant.

Combat
Characters can get Expertise with weapons, cantrips, and armor
Certain classes can attack after making Dodge or Disengage Action
Can interact with a 2nd object as bonus action
Charge is an action
Brace is an action
Suplex is an action

Equipment
More Shields added
Armor AC go from 10-20
Adventurering gear grouped by high and low magic.

Monsters
Monsters have lower HP overall.
Monsters get Roles. 
Warrior monsters have Expertise with their weapons.
Brutes get more HP
Minions get minimum HP
Spellcasters get Expertise with cantrips

Skills
Dungeoneering readded
Streetwise readded
Endurance readded
Nobility added
Engineering added
Weightlifting added

Options
Gifts are options as ASI replacement
Status are options as ASI replacement
Soul Weapons are options as ASI replacement


----------



## hopeless

Stop nerfing the Sorceror and let them decide what spells they want their caster to use depending on what they need not remove key spells that are actually useful!
Select your race and then which culture they were raised by thus certain abilities are counted as racial and others are culture related.
So a Dark Elf raised by a Wood Elf has wood elf weapon proficiencies but loses superior darkvision so they aren't effected by sunlight since they wasn't raised underground through to adulthood!
I wonder if a human was raised by an elf would they be treated as a half elf with the Skilled feat replacing their bonus Feat and they are treated as a Variant Human as a result?
I wonder how people would react to that?


----------



## Aldarc

Okay. Here are some general changes. 

Make Advantage / Disadvantage less ubiquitous as a miracle cure-all mechanic. 
Reorganize spells across 10 spell levels rather than 9 and adjust classes and spell lists accordingly.


----------



## Bagpuss

King Babar said:


> I would fix the Index, because whoever organized that damn thing is a sadist.



That would do for me.


----------



## Morrus

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.
> 
> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.
> 
> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



I hire a a diverse team of D&D designers and set them to work!

Wait, what? Oh yes, I did that!


----------



## Neonchameleon

I'd be much more interested in adding something like Giffyglyph's Monster Maker  to the DMG and adding stuff from Sly Flourish's lazy GMing guide than I would redoing the PHB. But:

*Basics: *

Default short rests become 8 hours and long rests either a week or at least a long lazy weekend. If using 8 hour long rests short become 5 or  15 minutes
Suggested optional "low magic" setting where the wizard, cleric, druid, and sorcerer are all banned (and the bard is if they remain a full caster). Playtest the game to check it works both with and without the artificer.
Lower all ACs by 2 - but add proficiency bonus to your AC.

*Races: *Replace half-orc with orc. Add Warforged and either Tabaxi or Aaracroka. Probably switch Tieflings default and variant. Darkvision as opposed to low light vision becomes very rare

*Classes:*

Add the Artificer and Warlord classes to core.
Make sure especially the non-casters have cool things at all levels. There's very little cool the fighter or rogue gets after level 11 while the monk gets cool stuff rather than reactive stuff at levels 7-10
*Bard: *
Redesign. The bard should be a half-caster with musical stuff on top of that.

*Fighter:*
A second archetype at level 12 to show how they actually get to hang with the casters. Whether it's mythological style, a determinator, a Cold Iron/Killer vs magic mundane choice, the fighter should scale thematically.
Make it explicit that the fighter can use their "extra" ASIs to pick feats even in games where feats are normally banned

*Monk:*
Something active between levels 7 and 10
Redesign Four Elements (the Reddit version would work)

*Ranger:*
Tasha's optional features become the default including for the Beastmaster (I suppose this isn't technically compatible with Tasha's...)
Hunter gains some spells (like all post-PHB subclasses)

*Rogue:*
As with the fighter a Rogue gets a second "epic archetype" at level 12 to show how they get to hang with the big boys. One being a thief of legend able to steal the colour of someone's eyes, and another being basically JLA Batman.

*Sorcerer:*
All subclasses should, Tasha's style, get two free spells per spell level from their subclass
Wild Mages get light armour proficiency
Draconic Mages can use Str (or possibly Con) in place of Dex for their scales AC

*Warlock:*
Eldritch Blast becomes a class feature and gets modified (generally just its damage type) by your patron
Some patrons grant medium armour
Redo Pact of the Blade to also allow you charisma to attack with and to add one "weight" to your armour proficiency
Add an Elementalist/Pyromancer/Arsonist patron as The Simple Blast Mage
Pull out the invocations no one takes (generally the ones that cost a spell slot to use) and replace them with better. Including ones to let you use your Eldritch Blast as a small AoE
Allow Mystic Arcanum slots to be used to up-cast spells.

*Feats: *Cut and replace the least useful third of feats. Trim Sharpshooter. Add replacements

*Backgrounds: *Add Dungeon World style bonds to the backgrounds - you get one inspiration point per level (or some other minor bonus) for each PC with a background with you.

*Equipment: *

Put some light basebuilding rules in here including for travelling bases and running towns. Something to save your money and work towards as a long term goal.
Replace "Studded leather" with "Reinforced leather"
Add both Lamellar and Brigandine armour
I'm sure I'll think of more.


----------



## Raith5

In terms of some general principles I would like to see

More customization options - essentially more feats and less dependence on subclasses for character development. 
Maker martial classes a bit more interesting. Id like to see the battlemaster significantly elaborated.
I would like to see equipment matter more - I think the weapon or spell focus in hand should heavily shape what character can do.
High quality equipment - so that there is something to spend money on (other than the 1500 gp you need for plate)
Reduce the incidence of Advantage / Disadvantage (5e has leant on this mechanic so heavily it is crazy)
Really test and rethink higher level play (13th and higher)
So yeah, as noted above, moving towards a whole new edition really!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Argyle King said:


> Alternatively, I may decide to get away from ability score bonuses at all and simply give racial abilities (i.e. Dragonborn breath weapon) to each race.



I think this is really the best way to simulate strength differences for a couple of reasons:

1) D&D in 4E and 5E is very intentionally terrible at actually connecting size and damage capacity. A Mountain Dwarf is just as dangerous as a Goliath, despite one being 4ft and 150lbs and the other being 8ft and 340lbs. Similarly carrying capacity and so on.

Whereas with racial abilities, you can make a differentiation - a Goliath can lift/pull 4x what a Dwarf can. Just have a similar thing so Small races can only lift/carry/etc. half of what medium can.

If there are other places it matters but wouldn't overcomplicate or overbalance rules, you could extend it to cover those, but unless you're moving back to bonuses/penalties instead of Advantage/Disadvantage I think it's best to just ignore it in a lot of edge cases.

2) This opens the door to a lot more flexibility generally, if you go less off ability scores for things like this (which don't make a ton of sense, and indeed never have in any edition).


Neonchameleon said:


> Add Warforged and either Tabaxi or Aaracroka.



This is a good call. Newer players seem very keen on Tabaxi so that seems like the way to go.

The people saying the Bard should become a half-caster are being pretty silly though imo. That would cause an absolute riot given the popularity of Bards with players under 30 and that the vast percentage of D&D players who are new with 5E (the majority of 5E players, I suspect) only know them as full casters. That's not a new PHB move, that's a serious edition-change _if_ you want the new edition to sell _less_ lol and you want younger players to complain about "grognards ruining D&D" a lot.


----------



## Disgruntled Hobbit

The order of character creation

1) Pick class
2) Pick ability scores
3) Pick race


----------



## Shardstone

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well yes to all of that for starters. Let's bullet-point this shiz:
> 
> *General:*
> 
> Alignment is barely mentioned
> Short rest is down to 10 mins
> *Races:*
> 
> Lineages replace races
> Darkvision becomes low-light vision by default
> Variant Tiefling is default Tiefling
> Dragonborn use the new Dragonborn approach
> Halfings inexplicably missing from index/table of contents and last in race chapter despite beginning with H in effort to give halfing fans a heart attack
> Gnomes replaced with 4E-style gnomes
> Fairies are in
> Half-Orcs are out
> Orcs are in
> *Classes/archetypes:*
> 
> Loads of +stat mod or usuable stat mod times stuff changed to proficiency (no brainer) - would need some tweaks in a few places
> All "major" customizations moved to L3 (I could be argued into L1).
> In most cases different subclasses but we'll be here all day if I list them all.
> Clerics broken into two customization parts - major customization is whether they're a melee, zapping, or support/utility-spells Cleric, minor customization is god (which just influences spell list). God is L1, major customization is L3.
> Wizards customization changed so specialist wizard is just one thing, but the best-designed specialist broken out into their own subclasses (Diviner hilariously). Reduced to sane number of subclasses as result.
> Fighters redesigned so Battlemaster stuff is part of core Fighter design - every Fighter archetype in the PHB gets access to manuevers/dice, BM just gets a lot more
> Monks redesigned and refluffed to clearly just be martial artists, core Monk chassis severely stripped down, most of the weird features removed and given to a sort of Shaolin Monk equivalent subclass. Better alternatives to stunning strike provided. Design space from removing weird Shaolin-esque features used to make archetypes work better.
> Sorcerers redesigned to use purely points-based casting - no more weird mix of slots and points.
> Ranger made less rubbish, Tashas options made default assumptions for the most part, totally different subclasses default
> *Skills*
> 
> Skills mechanics heavily re-worked
> Plot-point style mechanic built in to game to allow people to "take 10" on skills pretty regularly but not constantly
> Detailed guidance on what pass/fail on skills actually means
> Social skills particularly detailed re: default assumptions about when you can use them, and what they can achieve, and what pass/fail is likely to actually mean in a given situation
> Clear information that suggests DMs should not be asking you to roll the same skill repeatedly
> Default situation is that failure is not catastrophic clearly stated
> *Combat*
> 
> Surprise changed to not be dumb and make no sense.
> Gotta go now but maybe more later.



How would you rework skills?


----------



## King Babar

Also, ignoring all the potential changes to Races, Classes, Backgrounds, Spells, etc. Which is a big ol' can of worms on its own. Something that has recently struck me about the PHB is how little space is dedicated to showing examples of play. There's a small bit of blocked text in the beginning of the book that shows a very basic example, but there doesn't appear to be any additional examples elsewhere in the book.

Compare this to the Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook or the Runequest - Roleplaying in Glorantha book (and doubtlessly many other rulebooks), which do provide illustrative examples of how the rules and mechanics might actually play out in a game session.

So I would really like to see more page space dedicated to examples of play: how would wilderness navigation play out, how would a social interaction play out, how does surprise work; all of these could use illustrative examples. I know this might seem like useless filler to some, but I find these examples really helpful when I'm learning a rules system for the first time.


----------



## Mind of tempest

look it needs work but mostly I want to massively overhaul the monk as it could be so much better and in a way that is not just stupidly overpowered and does its core concept better and stops the homebrew glut of subclasses which are just fighting styles, instead going for more interesting and detailed concepts.
also, martial arts that are fun and do not totally rely on ki points or dm will.


King Babar said:


> Also, ignoring all the potential changes to Races, Classes, Backgrounds, Spells, etc. Which is a big ol' can of worms on its own. Something that has recently struck me about the PHB is how little space is dedicated to showing examples of play. There's a small bit of blocked text in the beginning of the book that shows a very basic example, but there doesn't appear to be any additional examples elsewhere in the book.
> 
> Compare this to the Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook or the Runequest - Roleplaying in Glorantha book (and doubtlessly many other rulebooks), which do provide illustrative examples of how the rules and mechanics might actually play out in a game session.
> 
> So I would really like to see more page space dedicated to examples of play: how would wilderness navigation play out, how would a social interaction play out, how does surprise work; all of these could use illustrative examples. I know this might seem like useless filler to some, but I find these examples really helpful when I'm learning a rules system for the first time.



examples would have really helped when I started.


----------



## King Babar

Since I can't help myself: I would change it so that many of the proficiencies currently tied to Race are moved over to Background instead. it's odd to me that a Soldier background doesn't provide any proficiencies in weapons or armor, for example. Really, Backgrounds as a whole could be given a bit more mechanical oomph.


----------



## Hakdov

Core rules is one book just like the D&D Cyclopedia.  4 races/4 classes.  Then sell Advanced phb's with additional classes, advanced dmg's with additional magic items and optional rules, and advanced monster manuals with additional monsters.


----------



## Blackrat

I take the 3.5e phb. I make the bare necessity changes to make it compatible with the other 5e books. Behold! My masterpiece


----------



## hopeless

So would hybrid be a good name to replace for half elves, orcs, etc?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hakdov said:


> Core rules is one book just like the D&D Cyclopedia.  4 races/4 classes.  Then sell Advanced phb's with additional classes, advanced dmg's with additional magic items and optional rules, and advanced monster manuals with additional monsters.



That's literally the _exact opposite model_ of the Rules Cyclopedia. Like literally the opposite. The Cyclopedia is... encyclopedic... it has all the rules and classes and monsters and so on.

That's why it was amazing:









						Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So yeah, that's not "just like" it at all.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

hopeless said:


> So would hybrid be a good name to replace for half elves, orcs, etc?



Probably not.

It sounds scientific and like it's treating the character in question as some kind of animal, freak, or curiousity. That's not a good look when talking about a living, thinking, feeling being with a soul.

It would probably be better to just note under Orc and Elf that you often had ones who were part-human and if so they might want to pick these options for lineage.


----------



## akr71

Split Ancestry into two pieces - or removing all learned things from Ancestry altogether and move it to Culture. Tool, skill weapon & armor proficiencies should come from culture and background.

Make a third tier of weapon proficiencies - militia maybe? [Simple-Militia-Martial]
Allow martial type characters to get better with their weapons as they progress. Something better than the feats presented in Tasha's but not so prone to abuse as weapon specialization of the past.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Probably not.
> 
> It sounds scientific and like it's treating the character in question as some kind of animal, freak, or curiousity. That's not a good look when talking about a living, thinking, feeling being with a soul.
> 
> It would probably be better to just note under Orc and Elf that you often had ones who were part-human and if so they might want to pick these options for lineage.



IMO, it might have been nice to provide a B/X game and then slowly build the complexity (e.g., levels, modularity, and classes) into the system over time, which would let them playtest this with greater granularity. Then come out with a Rules Cyclopedia that could also serve as both a collection of the rules and a soft reboot/errata version. But I think people would also be incensed about the idea of buying an "incomplete" game.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> I have attempted to answer the OP about 4-5 times now, and I every time I ended up making a new edition, so I give up.



Yea, that's where I am.  The requirement to keep it compatible with existing books (which means we can't really change class structure) is too much.


----------



## AtomicPope

I would add a section for Optional Advanced Play where feats, weapon specialization, focus specialization, and human variant types would be found.  I would slightly expand the weapon and focus rules to add a little more variety in choice.  Just spit-balling but something like a mistletoe focus would would give a +1 DC to any "plant" spells in their descriptor but a -1 to damage.  I like the idea of a fighter drawing a flail, and that means something, and the same goes for a wizard armed with an orb instead of a wand.   So a wizard could specialize in casting with a wand, a barbarian could specialize in battle axes, and a bard could specialize in tooting his own horn.  It would be like the 1e Unearthed Arcana but expanded to include casters.  The Advanced Play would also contain fighting schools, casting schools, and psionics, each using the template found in the latest UA where players can choose a subclass that is tied to a theme rather than a single class.


----------



## jgsugden

I push out the release date for it, and the rest of the next edition, for 10 years.


----------



## Maialideth

Reduce number of races (lineages) to Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Human, and Orc, and use more space to describe what makes each different from the others.
Place more emphasis on Backgrounds, maybe have ability score adjustments at character creation be more based on Background than lineage (or Background + Class for ability score adjustments).
Reduce level cap to 9 or 10 and have 11-20 be epic levels.
Darkvision out, or again based on Background.
Heavily rebalancing of spells.


----------



## Aldarc

TwoSix said:


> Yea, that's where I am.  The requirement to keep it compatible with existing books (which means we can't really change class structure) is too much.



I suspect that I would also infuriate half the regularly posting forum members here in the process too.


----------



## el-remmen

Pretty sure the changes I made would be incredibly unpopular.


----------



## Laurefindel

I am in charge? Me?!?! Hum, you want that PHB before 2035 right? You do? Oh well, better keep these changes simple then...

I’d make sure each class get 3 subclasses in PHB.

I’d work toward a warlock-like structure for all classes, with a significant choice at 1st level, another at 3rd level, and the option to delve deeper into a concept at 5th level.

I’d remove class features disguised as spells (looking at you hunter’s mark)

I would make clear guidelines for campaigns designed not to use the whole range of 20 levels, with pseudo capstone abilities for each established tier of play.

I’d include a journey/exploration/rest/downtime set of rules, perhaps around the concept of an overland round, and give class/background abilities that relate to that.

Speaking of backgrounds, they could use a bit more meat on them bones, and transfer the cultural aspect of races to backgrounds (with race-exclusive options, if necessary)

I’d expand on the concept of inspiration/hope/destiny with player-driven mechanics (rather than DM-dependency)

while we’re at it, rework the wild magic sorcerer with mechanics that are less DM-dependent.

I’d rework what I consider sub-par spells, and revisit concentration.

Maybe a few more things, but that’d be enough to get me busy until 2025, probably...


----------



## Jack Daniel

Fill it to the brim with clearly marked optional and alternative rules. Maybe sometimes with no default rule.

The Kids These Days™ (who, by the way, definitely need to Get Off My Lawn™) are entirely too concerned with the "official" D&D 5e rules. House rules are a lost art among the neophytes, and "homebrew" (which used to mean _writing your own entire game_) still carries the same _soupçon _of disdain that it always did, but now it just means _creating your own game content_—you know, that thing you're supposed to do normally.

Bah. (I'm a Millennial and not a Boomer, in case that isn't clear, but still, _bah._)


----------



## NotAYakk

The number on the cover.

Heritage and Background, merged.  Like pick 2.  This means that Background gets more heft.  They both give a HD/HP, which does away with "max HP on  HD at level 1".  This also encompasses supernatural gifts.

Revise the Ranger.

Default to gritty rests.  You can spend HD with medical or healing magic faster than overnight, recover *some* HD and abilities overnight, but require an extended rest to regain most spells.

Fix the "back 10" problem (the last 10 levels of most classes, except 6-9th level spells, tend to be lackluster).

Give all classes 2 customization points, one of which happens at level 1.  Like Fighting Style/Subclass for the Fighter, or Patron/Pact for the Warlock.

Get rid of Con-to-HP.  Maybe con gives you additional healing when spending HD without magic, and makes overnight HD recovery better.

Add "when you are magically healed, you must also spend a HD to increase the healing".  Without life force, magical healing can at most make someone stable (T3+ healing can sometimes bypass this).

Do a cleanup pass on bonus action economy.

Bake in a bit more Defender on Ranger/Paladin/Fighter/Barbarian.  If a party wants more durability, adding a melee type should help more than a "Healer".

Do a "dip" balance analysis.  Like how Paladins really want crits, Rogues want extra chances to hit/accuracy (and then crits), but don't get boosts to it in their own progression.  Even if Paladins got it in the back 10, it would at least provide a path to getting it without MCing.

Revise the various "companion" builds, using lessons learned.  Having a companion is one of the *two* customization points such classes have.

Example: One of the 2 customization points for Ranger can be "Hunter's Mark" or "Beast Companion" or "Warden (4e ish)".

Bake in downtime to the core rules, abilities that let you do things during an extended rest.

Bake in NPC connections to charisma; basically, an NPC who is somehow "loyal" or "helpful" to you.  Some backgrounds grant a pre-existing connection.  Your limit is charisma bonus plus proficiency bonus, and they can only be gained in play, and can be lost even if you spend one of your slots on them.  Think of it as an attunement limit; you can "maintain" cha+prof such relationships, and if you add more, the older ones sort of drift off (as happens in real life).  These are not adventuring allies.

Rewrite XP.  This is more of a DMG thing, but embrace using it for encounter building, which means throw out the entire large group multiplier thing.  Encounter building both can be, and needs to be "add up points and compare".

Embrace tiers of play.  Rework class abilities reflecting that.  Iconic T3 abilities aren't "you hit a bit harder"; they should be there, but a class needs more in T3 than that.

T1: 1-5 (5 levels)
T2: 5-11 (7 levels)
T3: 11-17 (8 levels)
T4: 17-20, Epic (4 levels + Epic)

Yes, there is overlap.  We can put major notes at:
T1: 3, 5
T2: 8, 11
T3: 14, 17
T4: 20, Epic

So two major "beats" at each tier.

Bring back OD&D based multiclassing, just because.  Fighter/Wizard!  This can even be via the subclass system, where your subclass is another main class.

Revise "alternative attack stat" mechanics.


----------



## Fenris-77

Remove both the table of contents and index, reorganize the content somewhat randomly, and then announce a bunch of cool mystery changes in a press release.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that I would also infuriate half the regularly posting forum members here in the process too.



But that's what makes it fun!


----------



## DemoMonkey

I reinstate level caps for non-humans, absolute alignment restrictions for some classes, and stat modifiers based on gender.

Not because I actually _want_ any of those things. But ...


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is a good call. Newer players seem very keen on Tabaxi so that seems like the way to go.



It's not just newer players. If you go back to Ron Edwards essay on Fantasy Heartbreakers 20 years ago one of the things he calls out that they all had in common was having either a race of cat-people or a race of bird-people. I'd go with the Tabaxi partly because if we have one or the other I'd rather not deal with a default race with wings and flying.


Ruin Explorer said:


> The people saying the Bard should become a half-caster are being pretty silly though imo. That would cause an absolute riot given the popularity of Bards with players under 30 and that the vast percentage of D&D players who are new with 5E (the majority of 5E players, I suspect) only know them as full casters. That's not a new PHB move, that's a serious edition-change _if_ you want the new edition to sell _less_ lol and you want younger players to complain about "grognards ruining D&D" a lot.



That depends how it was done - whether it was mediocre or awesome. To move to a half-caster bards would absolutely need to be on the magical level of artificers with their music. I think with a good enough designer this could be done but I don't think I could personally do it. If they aren't that evocative and strong it wouldn't work.


----------



## Gladius Legis

There was a half-caster bard in the playtest, and it was godawful. No to half-caster bards.


----------



## Hakdov

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's literally the _exact opposite model_ of the Rules Cyclopedia. Like literally the opposite. The Cyclopedia is... encyclopedic... it has all the rules and classes and monsters and so on.
> 
> That's why it was amazing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah, that's not "just like" it at all.



It had all the rules and classes for... Basic D&D.  The only way to make a one book D&D game is to sharply limit the choices and the basic game is the right model for this.  The current basic pdf rulebook does the same thing.  It would make the game easier and cheaper to get into.  Then you add on whatever optional books you want to expand your game with.


----------



## Hakdov

Jack Daniel said:


> Fill it to the brim with clearly marked optional and alternative rules. Maybe sometimes with no default rule.
> 
> The Kids These Days™ (who, by the way, definitely need to Get Off My Lawn™) are entirely too concerned with the "official" D&D 5e rules. House rules are a lost art among the neophytes, and "homebrew" (which used to mean _writing your own entire game_) still carries the same _soupçon _of disdain that it always did, but now it just means _creating your own game content_—you know, that thing you're supposed to do normally.
> 
> Bah. (I'm a Millennial and not a Boomer, in case that isn't clear, but still, _bah._)



Yeah, this is one thing that really disappointed me with the 5e phb.  They made a lot of promises about 5e being as modular in design as 2e was and it clearly is not.


----------



## Sithlord

Elves are faerie not humanoid. Definitely the kings and queens of the seelie courts. 

Rework concentration alot

Race as class to make them more nonhuman and not just humans with pointy ears

holy and unholy damage types

Only good alignments can heal

remove eldritch blast from warlock and make the patrons more mechanically important to class

remove metamagic from sorcerer and more mechanically based on their bloodline.

10 minute short rests

healing surges like 4E or 13th age

protection from evil more like 1E or RC

turn undead more like 2E or pathfinder at least

escalation die

Possibly a different magic system for each major spellcasting type. Warlocks, wizards

remove backgrounds. Bonus skills for high intelligence. No more tool proficiencies, just make them skills. Many skills like arcana and disable device can’t be used untrained.

only wizard gets concentration

more martial maneuvers.

hp do not change when u shapechange or polymorph 

clear definitions for alignment. You may disagree with them as a player in real life, but they are defined enough as a player mechanic.

paladins must be LG with oaths clearly defining their responsibilities and behavior

no multiclassing for paladins, clerics, monks, or rangers.


----------



## Maxperson

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.
> 
> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.
> 
> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



I change the freaking index.  Instead of Auran. See language, I'll save money and space and just point you to page 123.

Edit: Oh, and I get rid of the game being balanced around a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.


----------



## Umbran

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> _What do you do?_




I find someone whose work I enjoy, but is a more qualified game designer than I am, to handle it.


----------



## hopeless

Why not stop multi-classing for all the classes instead?
You could also use the 1e Bard as an example.
You need to reach 2-3rd level as a fighter before multi-classing to 3rd as a Cleric before you can go Paladin?


----------



## Sithlord

Hakdov said:


> Yeah, this is one thing that really disappointed me with the 5e phb.  They made a lot of promises about 5e being as modular in design as 2e was and it clearly is not.




this is why I think for presentation the 2E PHB book is the best.


----------



## jayoungr

I add extra options to it; I do not subtract or replace.  So I put in _both_ the classic and Tasha's versions of character stat adjustment.  I add the storm sorcerer subclass and whatever ranger subclass is considered the best (gloomstalker?).  Maybe an extra bard college too.

Also, I add the "gritty realism" resting variants from the DMG (so that people feel like they're more "canon") and the character history tables from XGtE (because I like them).

I put in a large, prominent sidebar somewhere stating that cultural notes are examples from the Forgotten Realms, that they will not apply to every world or even to every DM's take on the Realms, and that players should ideally work with their DMs to make characters that are appropriate for their individual campaigns.

Oh, and I add some extra paragraphs clarifying surprise, hiding, invisibility, and darkness.  And more on the difference between Perception and Investigation.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Grab Rob Shwalb and ask him: ''why did you keep all your best ideas for your own system instead of sharing them with the team when working on the 5e PHB?!''

I mean, take Shadow of the Demon Lord, make it a little more generic fantasy in terms of flavor and your all set:

Ancestries with some weight behind it.
Stackable Dis/Advantage that dont break the bounded accuracy.
All combination of class/specialization/prestige class are possible. You can be a mage, specialized as a berserker with a diplomat mastery.
Fast/Slow turn to make initiative a little less passive.
Themed magic! You can now be a fire mage, or summoner or time traveler, or enchanter etc
You Str score determines your proficiency with weapons and armors, not your class.
Still remarkably close to DnD 5e.


----------



## Oofta

I'd work with a team backed up by a lot of surveys and playtesting because I probably wouldn't bother buying a new edition with a lot of the changes people have suggested.

My basic working guidelines would be really simple:

Alignment and TBIF are cleaned up, given better descriptions.  Most importantly, reinforce that they are optional role playing aids to help you in assuming a different perspective and to help you with role play.  Same goes for the MM for that matter.  To me they are just different aspect of description, none are more important than the other.
Some racial things are fine, but tools, proficiencies and bonus spells should be rolled into backgrounds.  Yes, dwarves have darkvision, but don't assume that just because they're dwarves they know how to use a hammer.
Fix the wording for some races; half-orcs aren't restricted to slums, etc.
Replace the word "race" with "species".  Yeah, I know it doesn't sound like a fantasy phrase, but it's better.  Explain that half-elves and half-orcs (if you still have them) exist because of magic.
All of those could just be clarification and optional rules with little change to the core mechanics so I'd call it version 5.1.  Beyond that?  Almost all of the minor things that bother me can be easily house ruled but if my surveys and feedback provide more info I'll consider it.


----------



## Aldarc

vincegetorix said:


> Grab Rob Shwalb and ask him: ''why are did you keep all your best ideas for your own system instead of sharing them with the team when working on the 5e PHB?!''



(1) Some of those ideas were cribbed from 4e, and D&D Next was trying to distance itself from 4e at all costs, no matter how good of an idea they were turning down; and (2) I suspect that Schwalb was overruled by designers higher up the totem pole (e.g., Mearls and Crawford). It's like how after the Beatles breaks up, George Harrison drops an amazing album filled with songs he wrote that Paul and John rejected.



vincegetorix said:


> I mean, take Shadow of the Demon Lord, make it a little more generic fantasy in terms of flavor and your all set:
> 
> Ancestries with some weight behind it.
> Stackable Dis/Advantage that dont break the bounded accuracy.
> All combination of class/specialization/prestige class are possible. You can be a mage, specialized as a berserker with a diplomat mastery.
> Fast/Slow turn to make initiative a little less passive.
> Themed magic! You can now be a fire mage, or summoner or time traveler, or enchanter etc
> You Str score determines your proficiency with weapons and armors, not your class.
> Still remarkably close to DnD 5e.



But yeah, I think that my "new edition" that I mentioned would have veered pretty heavily towards Shadow of the Demon Lord or the upcoming Tales of the Weird Wizard.*

* Weird Wizard is his upcoming more generic fantasy version of SotDL.


----------



## Stormonu

Races
- add goblin, kobold, bugbear and tabaxi as non-standard races

Classes

Move Eldritch Knight to its own base class
Have at least 3 subclasses per class
Split sorcerer into two subcomponents; Ancestry defines where your magic comes from and gives bonus spells and a singular ability, Subclass defines how your magic works and gives you special class abilities (example Draconic becomes an Ancestry, Wild Magic becomes a subclass)
Make monk abilities more al la carte
More battle maneuvers and out-of-combat abilities for Battlemaster
Fighting styles for barbarian (with reckless attacker being a style)
Rework the Ranger as a Fighter/Druid/Rogue hybrid
possibly add Psionicist as a base class

Add more skills and the ability to add skill specializations (such as Pick Locks for Sleight of Hand, granting a +2 bonus when picking a lock using the Sleight of Hand skill).

Remove multiclassing and add feats that replicate it to a degree

Fix some issues with annoying spells (such as dropping Concentration on Barkskin)

And change the index to remove any "see section X" with the actual page number, then hunt down the original party responsible and mail them to Timbuktu.


----------



## steeldragons

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



Oh gods, I wasn't even thinking about the halfling art. YES! Burn it all with fire... and the Blue and lavendar-skinned elves? GONE! Out. Just out. In fact...let's just throw out the entire art direction/all graphics and redo.

Well, just some current day housekeeping: 

Make "Races" into "Species." Subraces, I suppose, would become this "Lineage" or "Heritage" thing that everyone seems so stoked about these days. If they are included AT ALL (which I am pretty on the fence about) limit each species to two "subs" to begin. Any-/Everything else can be added through supplements/expanded Species book or what have you.
NO DROW as a PC option, let alone the frickin' "Example of the Species" opening image for Elf. grrr.
No "Dragonborn" or "Tiefling" as an individual species, but achievable by some "Half-something" mechanic or "Lineage" option.
Alignment gets a long-needed reward/penalty mechanic to make it the pivotal part of character creation and roleplay that it IS and should universally be acknowledged as.
Restructure the organization of Magic to include more than just "Divine or Arcane" and give palpable differences to practicing/following/training with each, beyond "access to healing spells or not."

Classes: 

We're scrubbing Magic out of at least half of the them. Barbarians? No magic. Fighters? No magic. Thieves? No magic. Base Ranger! No magic. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are not immediate subclasses, but something like them is achievable somehow, through a feat or something.
Like Species, all classes get equal/fair treatment. Each class gets...two subclasses in the PHB to begin. Done. Everything else is noise and space-eaters. Take the biggest, most acknowledged/known archetypes and use them to get the game rolling. Every other possible option for a subclass is what Unearthed Arcana, setting manuals, and other supplements are for.
Oh yeah, so we're returning the "Rogue" class to it's rightful title, "Thief," btw.
Ranger gets a total rework (NOT a half-caster, for starters).
Bard gets a total rework (YES a half-caster, for starters).
Fighter gets a rework.
Druid gets a rework.
Sorcerer class is eliminated, made achievable by background/trait or some game option.
Warlock class is eliminated, made achievable by background/trait or some game option. Or, possibly, some "Advanced" class option in some later manual.
Monk...hm...it's fine I guess. Gets Lawful Alignment tied to it, though.
Reintroduce Ability score Minimums and Multiple Ability thresholds for the more specific classes -those more narrowly defined, the more fluff and crunch special specifics of specialness the more difficult the threshold should be to achieve (at least by natural rolling). 
I could probably be here all day. But let's get the team started with those and come find me when you need more.


----------



## Dragonsbane

Keep alignment, make it more important.

Get rid of hit points in favor of pools like in Cypher System.

Stop all retcon stuff, and include a box of tissues for the overly-sensitive.

Fix resting.

More skills needed.

Explain "Bounded Accuracy" in detail. Twice.


----------



## Remathilis

Add a lot of the options in Tasha as core elements. Update the phb races to bring l them in line with lineages. Add bonus spells to ranger and sorcerer subs. Downplay alignment. Tweaking vs reinventing.


----------



## DammitVictor

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.




Hey, your premise is your premise-- and I'll try to restrain myself-- but I just want to point out _that's never going to happen_. When WotC puts out 6e, likely several years from now, it's not going to look like 5e at all. They've put out three editions since they bought TSR and _not one of them_ has been substantially compatible with the edition that came before it.

When they eventually publish a new edition, compatibility is not going to be a concern.

With that out of the way...

Kill subraces *dead*. Every race-- let's go ahead and call them _lineages_-- has a small list of features and a larger list of options, and every lineage gets to pick X options from that list. The sole legitimate exception in the PHB, Drow, will be a separate playable race. Unselected lineage features would be available later using other decision points.
Kill alignment *dead* and don't replace it with anything.
Mainstream a lot of Tasha's elements.
Proficiency Slots. Instead of screwing with Bounded Accuracy, proficiency slots would grant additional abilities in the skills you invest in; this would replace Expertise, for players who just can't live without their _numbers go up. _Rogues, Bards, _and Fighters_ would get more proficiency slots than other classes.
Bring back Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, or some equivalent thereof.
Standardize class decision points at 1st/2nd/3rd.
Tie multiclassing into the Archetype/Path/Destiny system.
Make "class feature" spells (like _eldritch blast_ and _hunter's mark_) into actual class features.
There are a lot of my major gripes with 5e that I just can't address in a system that would remain compatible with 5e... but this, I think, would be several large steps to improving it.


----------



## Remathilis

Now taking this as a very biased an unscientific observation, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of people here don't appear to like 5e in it's current format. The changes are old chestnut (race/lineage, class list and design, alignment) and seem to fall into the "reverse this change to how it was done prior" or the "they didn't go far enough with the changes" boats. I'm not sure if that says more about the game or the community here at ENworld...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.
> 
> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.
> 
> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



Okay I’ll do a whole post later but the quick and dirty is; first I’d try to hire Tanya DePass, Dave B Walters, Gabe Hicks, Daniel Kwan, Brennan Lee Mulligan, and Molly Ostertag, to help me write it.  

Then I’d bring back low-light vision and sub it in for dark vision in like 90% of cases.  

Next, Wild Shape, Beast Companion, Find Familiar, would all get scaling semi-generic statblock options.  

Druid gets more Wild Shapes, and can use them for different things in the base class. Like casting summon Beast without spending a spell slot. Also it’s less limited, especially for Moon Druids. And I’d add a subclass with an animal companion.  

I’d change the halfling art to be less bobbleheaded, gnomes to have normal head shapes, and increase the diversity of art.  

Races don’t get ability score increases anymore. Most races are fine, but a few get additional features to round them out in the absence of ASIs. Mountain Dwarf gets powerful build.  

Add Goliath, Orc (Eberron style), and maybe Tabaxi.  

Gnomes all get animal speech, and I’d try to make rock gnomes more satisfying, because I do see room for gnomes that aren’t tinkers so I don’t want to just combine them into one thing and say “no gnomes subraces”.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> Hey, your premise is your premise-- and I'll try to restrain myself-- but I just want to point out _that's never going to happen_. When WotC puts out 6e, likely several years from now, it's not going to look like 5e at all. They've put out three editions since they bought TSR and _not one of them_ has been substantially compatible with the edition that came before it.



If 6e happens, it will be backward compatible.  

They aren’t going to mess with the most successful formula for D&D that has ever existed.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> Now taking this as a very biased an unscientific observation, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of people here don't appear to like 5e in it's current format. The changes are old chestnut (race/lineage, class list and design, alignment) and seem to fall into the "reverse this change to how it was done prior" or the "they didn't go far enough with the changes" boats. I'm not sure if that says more about the game or the community here at ENworld...



A little of Column A, a little of Column B. I think it's a natural product of game evolution. We obviously have more years playing this game than the duration of the playtest, and obviously that has only grown with its expanded playerbase. We've learned a lot about the game during that time. We have seen areas of the game that could use improvement, and many have given their feedback on that. We have seen areas of the game that WotC also seems to believe needs improvement. The designers at WotC may themselves not be entirely satisfied with 5e in its current form.


----------



## Steampunkette

Oh my... let's see. How would I change things for 6e?

*Far Reaching Systems Changes:*
1) No longer a strict d20 System. d20s are a part of the game, but not the exclusive resolution of all systems.
2) Proficiency Bonuses do not grow as a set number, but are instead a dice you add to your d20 roll. +2 becomes 1d4. +6 becomes +1d12 And being proficient means you can never roll a nat 1, only a "nat 2" or higher.
2a) Proficiency Bonuses can be reduced by different circumstances, but can never be lowered into a negative proficiency.​2b) If your Proficiency bonus would be increased above 1d12, roll twice and take the better of the two rolls.​2c) Halfling Luck and other functions triggered by a Nat 1 on a d20 roll still come into play, allowing you to reroll the d20.​3) It is possible to Critically Fail on Saves and Skill Checks. Doing so doesn't automatically have a big secondary effect, but if you roll a 1 on a jump check and your Strength Mod beats the DC but you don't have proficiency you have still failed.
4) Advantage and Disadvantage still exist, and allow you to roll 2d20 in appropriate situations and take the higher or lower of the two rolls, but do not affect Proficiency Dice.
5) Rest durations are VARIABLE rather than fixed. A short rest can be 1 minute to catch your breath in a tense situation, or 4 hours in camp. Long Rests can be a few hours between battles or a week of recovery. This variability is determined by the current situation and adjudicated by the DM.
5a) Introduce the Full Rest, which restores all Hit Dice, removes all Exhaustion, and takes significantly longer than the Long Rest.​5b) The DM can optionally choose a set time interval for each type of rest.​6) Magic is one form of Supernatural Power, but not the only form. It is also divided by different spellcasting traditions and sources for narrative purposes with the explicit understanding that a given setting's narrative choices override the default.
7) Countdown Dice resolve tense noncombat situations. Someone picking a lock will eventually succeed. It's just a matter of time, tools, and skill. But perhaps not before the party is found by the patrolling guards, for example.
7a) The DM selects a number of d6s based on how long it should take to complete the task.​7b) The Players roll the dice each round and remove dice that roll a 6 from the pool.​7c) Players with Proficiency may remove dice with a 5 or a 6 showing.​7d) Players with Expertise may remove dice with a 4, 5, or 6 showing.​7e) The DM rolls a similar pool based on the opposing party or danger.​7f) Countdowns can also be unilateral, with the DM rolling to see how long before an enemy joins a fight, or a player trying to destroy an artifact while their allies hold off cultists trying to stop them.​
*Major Character Creation Changes:*
1) Race is broken down into Species and Culture.
1a) Cultures can be based on a given race, like a set of different Elven Cultures, but most cultures are more general like Seafaring or Cosmopolitan, or a combination of different cultures like Seafaring Raiders and Seafaring Explorers.​1b) Species involves things like whether or not you have Darkvision, how you Sleep, the amount of Air, Food, and Water you need, how fast you move as a baseline.​1c) Culture determines skills, feats, spellcasting traits separate from classes, and other culturally reinforced identity.​1d) Guidelines will be provided to create new cultures and subcultures to increase narrative variety.​2) Attributes can be Point Buy, Standard Array, or a Dice Rolls. AL will not accept dice rolls, obviously.
3) Classes will be revamped fairly drastically.
3a) All spellcasters will use Cantrips that scale in a manner similar to a fighter's total number of attacks.​3b) Spellcasters will get a much smaller and scaling number of spell slots to use during the day, rather than a lot of level specific slots ranging from 1-9.​3c) Spellcasters will largely function on a long-rest basis, but regain a small amount of their power on a short rest, except the Warlock which is the reverse.​3d) Martial Characters will get their own chapter of Martial Maneuvers that have a short-rest use limit and a very small number of long-rest options.​3e) Psionics will become a part of the core game. Psionicists will largely function like spellcasters, only that their powers are almost all Cantrips which use a short-rest recovery spell point mechanic to improve different aspects of those cantrips to change their function.​3f) Druids will no longer have Wild Shape by default. Instead they'll have "Primal Power" which is similar to Channel Divinity, of which Wild Shape will be an option that recovers on a Short Rest rather than a Long Rest basis.​3g) Clerics will lose their Armor Proficiencies, by default, and gain an Unarmored Defense basis, with the option of gaining armor through specific Subclasses​3h) Clerics gain bonuses when casting from their chosen domain.​3i) Bards will gain more song/art/performance based class features that can be Maintained as a bonus action. Maintaining a performance can require giving up a portion of your movement doing fancy dances, making a speech which cannot be disguised, or singing and playing instruments audible to normal ranges.​3j) Ritual Casting is something every spellcaster type character gets, and the Ritual Spell Lists will be drastically increased to include a lot of out-of-combat magic. Casting times will range from Countdown(x) where X is the number of d6s used, to 8 hours for particularly high level or far-reaching rituals. Resurrection is something you set the better part of a day aside to complete.​

*Major Skill Changes:*
1) LSA rolls. Luck (1d20) Skill (Proficiency Dice) Attribute (Ability Score Modifier)
2) Critical Failure of a skill check is possible if you do not have Proficiency on a roll of a Natural 1. Other than failure there is no associated serious penalty.
3) Skills have Default Attributes
3a) A player may request, and a DM adjudicate, the use of an unconventional skill/attribute combination.​3b) The DM may outright request an unconventional skill/attribute combination if it fits the situation.​4) Expertise does not increase Proficiency Size, but allows you to roll your proficiency dice twice on relevant skill checks and take the higher of the two rolls.
5) Skill Based Countdowns are a default for activities which are performed until completion, such as searching for a secret door or picking a lock. These Countdowns involve a no-fail scenario where the only cost is time.
6) Passive Skills are 10+1/2 Proficiency Dice Value+Attribute.


*Major Combat Changes:*
1) LSA rolls. Luck (1d20) Skill (Proficiency Dice) Attribute (Ability Score Modifier)
2) Armor uses both Absolute Defense and Damage Reduction values.
2a) Absolute Defense is the value applied to your AC to determine whether or not an attack hits or misses.​2b) Damage Reduction is a set amount, modified by magical bonus, which reduces incoming damage by that value.​2c) Absolute Defense is not increased by an armor's magical bonus, damage reduction is.​3) Initiative is a Skill Check based on the situation.
3a) Default to Perception.​3b) Optional Rule for using Dexterity as default​4) Critical Hits (Nat 20 on the d20 regardless of proficiency roll) double all damage and apply Wounds.
4a) Wounds reduce your Maximum HP by the amount rolled.​4b) If your Wound total is equal to your Maximum HP you are Doomed to Die.​5) Defenses can negate a critical hit.
5a) A shield can be sacrificed outright to negate a critical hit and the wound it would cause, resulting in a normal hit.​5b) Your armor's value, both in Absolute Defense and Damage Reduction, may be halved until repaired to negate a Critical Hit. You can only damage armor this way once until it has been repaired.​5c) A critical hit which deals no damage due to Damage Reduction does not apply any Wound.​6) Flanking, positional combat benefits, and basic combat maneuvers are added.
6a) When flanking an opponent (Characters on opposite facings of the target's square) treat your proficiency die as 1 size larger for attacks or skill checks against the target.​6b) Being positioned above your target increases your proficiency dice to attack rolls by 1 size. Being below reduces it by 1 size.​6c) Standing back to back moves two willing allied creatures within 1 size category of each other into the same space, these creatures cannot be flanked, but also move of their lowest combined speed if they choose to remain back to back.​6d) Disarming a target can be performed with melee attacks, whether natural, weapon, or spell attacks. And with a class feature or feat, ranged attacks can also be used to disarm a target. Disarming only works on targets using manufactured weapons, not natural weapons or magical effects shaped like weapons.​7) Cover alters your Proficiency Dice by 1 negative step against a target behind partial cover, 2 steps behind half-cover, and 3 steps behind 3/4 cover. It no longer provides an Armor Class Bonus.


*Major Magic Changes:*
1) There are 4 different types of Magic.
1a) Arcane: Used by Wizards, Sorcerers, and Artificers. Has it's own spell list with spells labeled by School. No Healing. Baseline otherwise.​1b) Divine: Used by Clerics and Paladins. Has it's own spell list with spells labeled by Domains. More Buffs without concentration required.​1c) Occult: Used by Bards and Warlocks. Has it's own spell list. More Target Control/Manipulation without concentration required. Minimal healing.​1d) Primal: Used by Druids and Rangers. Has it's own spell list. More Battlefield Control without concentration required.​4) Subclasses are also tied to a specific magic type, such as Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights being Arcane, while a Primal Rager might be a Barbarian with Primal Spellcasting.
3) Some spells may be class-specific, even if they're from the same source another class uses.
4) Healing uses the target's Hit Dice Size, rather than a value set by the spell.
5) Sensible, but somewhat varied, component rules.
5a) Arcane uses V/S/M. Verbal can be heard within earshot at normal volume. Focus can replace cheap material and be used for somatic gestures. Focus is a Wand, Staff, Orb, or Deck of Cards.​5b) Divine uses Prayer and Focus. The prayer is quiet, audible only within 5ft, but the Focus must be presented visibly. Focus is a Holy Symbol.​5c) Occult uses Chanting or Music and Sacrifices. Chanting and Music cannot be hidden and are audible within earshot at normal volume. Sacrifices are material components made into representations of people or things, but may also include Hit Points, Hit Dice, or even small animal sacrifices depending on the spell.​5d) Primal uses Calls, Focuses, and Sacrifices. Calls are animal noises, nature sounds, or guttural cries. Focuses are typically staves, mistletoe, shillelaghs, or carved animal and elemental symbols on stone, wood, or bone.​

*Major Environmental Changes:*
1) Exploration Gameification through something like the A5e Journey System.
2) Social Gameification through something like the A5e Journey System.
3) Downtime Options as a core function.


----------



## M_Natas

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.
> 
> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.
> 
> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



I would start a new edition of the PHB with a section on actually how to play the game.
Character Creation, Gear and Stuff would all come later, but people need to know how to play. The PHB at the moment is only good, if somebody is teaching you how to play, but it is not good for anybody who is a beginner and wants to learn the game by reading the book which is supposed to be a manual.


----------



## Hakdov

doctorbadwolf said:


> If 6e happens, it will be backward compatible.
> 
> They aren’t going to mess with the most successful formula for D&D that has ever existed.



I thought the exact same thing back with 3e and then wotc gave us the train wreck that was 4e.   Hopefully they have learned their lesson.


----------



## grimslade

I would run an extended playtest with transparent iterations and clear goals for changes. D&DNext was a good way to really show off what D&D could be. I am still mining stuff that was dropped off development.
A couple of wish list items:

Race becomes lineage Stat bonus moved to class
Multiclass rules limited a bit; no one level dips
Complete redesign of the sorcerer No more junior wizard Innate caster using primal elements No spell slots


----------



## Sithlord

some third party company is out there waiting for the day wotc makes a radically new edition of the game that doesn’t resemble d&d.


----------



## Oofta

Remathilis said:


> Now taking this as a very biased an unscientific observation, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of people here don't appear to like 5e in it's current format. The changes are old chestnut (race/lineage, class list and design, alignment) and seem to fall into the "reverse this change to how it was done prior" or the "they didn't go far enough with the changes" boats. I'm not sure if that says more about the game or the community here at ENworld...



Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but 5E is still growing by double digits. So I disagree that "the vast majority" of people don't like 5E.  Take a look at some of the responses and there are a few minor commonalities that I see pop up like how we handle race/culture and backgrounds.  But other than that?  If you distilled the ideas down into workable rules and hashed out some minor differences I think you'd still see a half dozen different incompatible games.  

The ideas aren't bad or wrong in any way, but different people have different ideas on what "better" looks like.  It likely would be better, _for them_. If I tried to do a new edition? It would probably work out as well as the Homermobile.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay I’ll do a whole post later but the quick and dirty is; first I’d try to hire Tanya DePass, Dave B Walters, Gabe Hicks, Daniel Kwan, Brennan Lee Mulligan, and Molly Ostertag, to help me write it.
> 
> Then I’d bring back low-light vision and sub it in for dark vision in like 90% of cases.
> 
> Next, Wild Shape, Beast Companion, Find Familiar, would all get scaling semi-generic statblock options.
> 
> Druid gets more Wild Shapes, and can use them for different things in the base class. Like casting summon Beast without spending a spell slot. Also it’s less limited, especially for Moon Druids. And I’d add a subclass with an animal companion.
> 
> I’d change the halfling art to be less bobbleheaded, gnomes to have normal head shapes, and increase the diversity of art.
> 
> Races don’t get ability score increases anymore. Most races are fine, but a few get additional features to round them out in the absence of ASIs. Mountain Dwarf gets powerful build.
> 
> Add Goliath, Orc (Eberron style), and maybe Tabaxi.
> 
> Gnomes all get animal speech, and I’d try to make rock gnomes more satisfying, because I do see room for gnomes that aren’t tinkers so I don’t want to just combine them into one thing and say “no gnomes subraces”.




Some other changes I'd make: 

*Fighters* would gain an optional variant feature that replaces extra extra attacks with legendary actions. PRobably call them Heroic Action. The list of things you could do with them would be similar to the extra action from Haste, and you can do them after any turn in initiative. 

I'd add a Fighting style that simply allows the fighter to make their weapon damage magical and of an elemental type, and deal proficiency damage once per turn to a creature within 10ft of them or a target they hit when they hit with an attack. This allows a gish or arcane archer from level 1, and works with the attack action, which all fighting styles should obviously do. 

Replace Indomitable with a Legendary Resistance. 

*Monk* would gain rename Ki to Focus, and the class would be renamed Mystic. 

1/2 your total Focus can be regained by spending 1 minute in meditation, during which time you must maintain concentration. You can do this prof mod per day. 

Add Mightly Blow to Focus Abilities. Bonus action when you hit, cost 1 Focus, you deal extra damage equal to 3 of your Martial Arts Die. Can spend additional FOcus, gaining 1 die for each additional focus spent.

Make Deflect Arrows into Deflect Attacks. In melee you can make an unarmed attack by spending 1 Focus. You can also choose to spend 1 Focus to gain THP equal to the damage you negated, after the attack is resolved. You can't do both. 

Add a feat of strength type ability to the Focus Abilities. 

4 Elements Monk gets an overhaul, gaining elemental stances that give access to at-will and limited abilities. Focus abilities cost 1 Focus per spell level, rather than 1+1/spell level. More of these abilities are bonus actions or part of an attack action, so less competition with base class features.

*Artificer* becomes a PHB class. I add in Infusions that grant higher level spellcasting than 5th. Each such infusion is an item that lets you cast that specific spell 1/day. You also gain 1 more Infusion than is currently the case, at level 5. 

Weapons and armor get a review, finesse is more common, including bows (allowing you to use strength), and a light glaive type weapon. Introduce heavy shields which have a strength requirement and give partial cover against AoEs on top of +2 AC. 

*Captain* class introduced. Uses Morale as a limited resource, has a "presence" aura that passively impacts initiative and has active benefits as you level. Not all subclasses are "leader" oriented, but instead act as a sort of "paragon" or "exemplar". Ability to share proficiencies, help other PCs and NPC allies learn stuff faster, each subclass has a type of organization that they have greater and easier access to than others do.

*Perhaps *at high levels both the Captain, Paladin, and the Fighter gain the ability to gain hirelings to perform mundane tasks for them, and do jobs like completing downtime activities for the group while the group adventures. This might instead be a whole system of it's own. 

*Cleric *gets overhauled so that the base class is vastly more a priest, and the vampire hunter war-priest thing lives in subclass options. 

*Paladin* gets less healing, gains some inspiration abilities, and all paladins gain the ability to "turn" regular folks and make them reconsider their life choices. 

*Ranger* gains extra spells _prepared_ from their choice of terrain, _and_ gain Deft Explorer as a basic class feature. Favored Enemy is left mostly alone except that you also gain the ability to make a Bane, which is essentialy a poison that does stuff like shutting down common monster abilities, making all attacks against the creature count as magical until it saves, makes flight clumsy and slow, makes spellcasting harder, etc. You'd get a basic one for free, and then at least one related to your favored enemy choice.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hakdov said:


> I thought the exact same thing back with 3e and then wotc gave us the train wreck that was 4e.   Hopefully they have learned their lesson.



I was extremely greateful that they ditched the design ethos of 3e, because IMO it is hands down the worst edition of DnD, and one of the worst RPGs I've ever been coerced into playing by my friends. 

But I don't think they're going to do a 180 on their desire to make DnD a game that anyone can sit down and know how to play, because it's been the same game for decades. They know that is how they keep PHB sales high. 

They're not going to split the fanbase again for no reason.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> That depends how it was done - whether it was mediocre or awesome. To move to a half-caster bards would absolutely need to be on the magical level of artificers with their music. I think with a good enough designer this could be done but I don't think I could personally do it. If they aren't that evocative and strong it wouldn't work.





Gladius Legis said:


> There was a half-caster bard in the playtest, and it was godawful. No to half-caster bards.



Yeah as Gladius says, I've never seen a half-caster Bard not in official material, not in unofficial material, that wasn't _complete and utter trash_ of the most crummy kind of a mechanical level, and usually not at all fun to play either (I say this as someone who has played multiple Bards in every edition from 2E to 5E, as well as various other D&D-related games).

Could it be done? Yeah, _probably_, with a sufficiently genius designer, who can manage to work out how to make up for losing god knows how many incredibly powerful spells. Is it remotely _likely_ to happen? Noooooo. I've never seen anyone manage it.

And what's interesting to me is, the people keen on the idea of a half-caster Bard? _Almost_ universally don't like or long-term play Bards. They're just offended by the concept of full-caster Bards, aesthetically. They liked it when the Bard has to be this passive loser-guy in 3.XE and Pathfinder, singing for the benefit of everyone else, not upsetting the Wizard by casting better spells than him. To hell with that! I started in 2E. The 2E Bard might technically _seem_ like a half-caster, but in practical terms, no, because of XP. I was literally casting 5th-level spells before the Elven Fighter/Mage in my party was, back in 2E, and not far behind the actual full-on Mage.

I mean to be fair, only one Bard sucked, and that was the 3.XE Bard. 2E you levelled like a rocket and had access to a really good selection of stuff re: fighting, sneaking, and spelling, with music and lore to complete the package. 3.XE, you were just terrible. This awful character who had been shoved into this support-hole, but who wasn't a full caster like the "support" Cleric (who also had a much higher AC, better HP, better spell access, same BAB, and was just missing some janky music abilities, which his spells could outperform anyway, for the most part). At least you had spells and thanks to LFQW you weren't the worst character in the party. 4E Bard was extremely solid, fun, and well-themed. 5E Bard is a powerhouse like all the 5E full casters and is great fun to play.


----------



## overgeeked

Make player-facing rolls the default. This greatly reduces the amount of bored check-out time players have to deal with between their turns. So players would roll an "AC save" along with their other saves, and the players would roll attacks against the monsters' stats instead of monsters rolling saves.

Split ancestry and culture. Make most cultures like backgrounds where they give you a couple of skill profs and tools along with a small feature. Make most cultures universal but include some unique ones.

Eliminate the short rest as a power-recharge mechanic and readjust short-rest dependent classes accordingly.

Give martials a much needed boost.

Incorporate the optional class features from Tasha's.

Make the bard a half caster, round up, like the artificer.

Rework confusing, broken, and game breaking spells. Spells like sleep, forcecage, and wish come to mind.

Out-of-bounds fixes. Bring back 4E monster design, encounter design, and the bloodied condition. Also a return to the points-of-light default setting and the World Axis cosmology.

Remove the assumptions of 6-7 combats per day and a four-character party from the design. To me, those fixes alone would solve the majority of 5E's mechanical problems. Along with fixing LFQW, of course.

With those mostly minor fixes I think 5E would likely be the hands down best edition of D&D.


----------



## Gladius Legis

Hakdov said:


> I thought the exact same thing back with 3e and then wotc gave us the train wreck that was 4e.   Hopefully they have learned their lesson.



3e still didn't move D&D out of the niche market the way 5e did. 3e was also fundamentally broken in ways 5e isn't.


----------



## Steampunkette

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah as Gladius says, I've never seen a half-caster Bard not in official material, not in unofficial material, that wasn't _complete and utter trash_ of the most crummy kind of a mechanical level, and usually not at all fun to play either (I say this as someone who has played multiple Bards in every edition from 2E to 5E, as well as various other D&D-related games).
> 
> Could it be done? Yeah, _probably_, with a sufficiently genius designer, who can manage to work out how to make up for losing god knows how many incredibly powerful spells. Is it remotely _likely_ to happen? Noooooo. I've never seen anyone manage it.
> 
> And what's interesting to me is, the people keen on the idea of a half-caster Bard? _Almost_ universally don't like or long-term play Bards. They're just offended by the concept of full-caster Bards, aesthetically. They liked it when the Bard has to be this passive loser-guy in 3.XE and Pathfinder, singing for the benefit of everyone else, not upsetting the Wizard by casting better spells than him. To hell with that! I started in 2E. The 2E Bard might technically _seem_ like a half-caster, but in practical terms, no, because of XP. I was literally casting 5th-level spells before the Elven Fighter/Mage in my party was, back in 2E, and not far behind the actual full-on Mage.
> 
> I mean to be fair, only one Bard sucked, and that was the 3.XE Bard. 2E you levelled like a rocket and had access to a really good selection of stuff re: fighting, sneaking, and spelling, with music and lore to complete the package. 3.XE, you were just terrible. This awful character who had been shoved into this support-hole, but who wasn't a full caster like the "support" Cleric (who also had a much higher AC, better HP, better spell access, same BAB, and was just missing some janky music abilities, which his spells could outperform anyway, for the most part). At least you had spells and thanks to LFQW you weren't the worst character in the party. 4E Bard was extremely solid, fun, and well-themed. 5E Bard is a powerhouse like all the 5E full casters and is great fun to play.



Oo... that is another thought. Making different types of magic -mean- different things.

So... Half-Caster Bard would suck. But what if Bard and Warlock style Occult spells capped out at "5th Level" but 5th level was closer to 8th/9th level for a Wizard? Or a Cleric doing the same thing with 7th level spells.

Different Scales for different classes, so some "Lag" at certain levels and "Jump" at others, so there's more room for other class features and defining traits. So a Wizard gets a constant granular increase in spell power, while the Bard's spell power increases in fits and spurts but there's a greater quantity of bard class abilities between the levels they'd otherwise get spell slots if they had 9 levels of spells.

Could be an interesting direction to take spellcasters to make them more varied than they currently are.

Comparative using Wizard spell levels/power as baseline:
Wizard: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cleric: 1 2 4 5 6 7 9
Bard: 1 3 5 7 9

... not sure this makes sense.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Gladius Legis said:


> 3e still didn't move D&D out of the niche market the way 5e did. 3e was also fundamentally broken in ways 5e isn't.



I see even parts of the new guard just baffled by how things work as it does not match up to intuition very well in some areas.
few calls for 6e but complaint less they are not.


----------



## Scribe

If it was me?

Alignment Matters.
Lineage Matters (ASI Increase unique to Lineage)
Sub Classes.
Sub Lineage.
Increase in Background and Culture having a mechanical impact.
Reinforce 'D&D-isms'

Establish the current fact that Alignment on a Lineage is a quick recommendation not the unchanging law.

Tasha's is an option.

Cleave to the original premise that 5e is inward looking, and D&D for all who have, and could later, play it.

Oh, and long live The Great Wheel.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Sithlord said:


> some third party company is out there waiting for the day wotc makes a radically new edition of the game that doesn’t resemble d&d.



We can call the game that company releases, "Pathdetector". 

for me?  The biggest change I'd do is include a passage that says, "Every time someone starts yet another new discussion about what needs to be changed in the edition following this one, we will ensure that that suggestion never makes it in."


----------



## Aldarc

grimslade said:


> I would run an extended playtest with transparent iterations and clear goals for changes. D&DNext was a good way to really show off what D&D could be. I am still mining stuff that was dropped off development.
> A couple of wish list items:
> 
> Race becomes lineage Stat bonus moved to class
> Multiclass rules limited a bit; no one level dips
> Complete redesign of the sorcerer No more junior wizard Innate caster using primal elements No spell slots



Moving stat bonuses to Background and Lineage to reflect your training is a pretty solid choice.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

There's a lot of quibbles that I have regarding class features, but few of them are fatal. Worst case scenario, just give the character an awesome magic item. 

I think stat bonuses should move out of race/lineage/ancestry into class and background. I'd like each race to have a "power" similar to 4E's approach to race. That's really fun stuff.

Also agree that "culture" could help differentiate races more.

And I like the idea of making backgrounds beefier with (for example) weapon proficiencies.

On the DM side, I'd like more support for a lot of subsystems like travel, social encounters, high level wealth sinks, etc. Level Up is doing the Lord's work in this area.

Monsters are a little dull. Higher level monsters don't hit hard enough. Spell lists on monsters typically provide a lot of suboptimal choices that make it hard to discern the combat loop for said monster. I would have liked to see minions/mobs to provide a bit more variety in the types of battles.

All of that said, 5E is really good, and I'm not sure it gets enough credit for how elegant the core of the system is.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sacrosanct said:


> We can call the game that company releases, "Pathdetector".
> 
> for me?  The biggest change I'd do is include a passage that says, "Every time someone starts yet another new discussion about what needs to be changed in the edition following this one, we will ensure that that suggestion never makes it in."



The next edition would be one page consisting of nothing but profanity by following that rule.


THEMNGMNT said:


> There's a lot of quibbles that I have regarding class features, but few of them are fatal. Worst case scenario, just give the character an awesome magic item.
> 
> I think stat bonuses should move out of race/lineage/ancestry into class and background. I'd like each race to have a "power" similar to 4E's approach to race. That's really fun stuff.
> 
> Also agree that "culture" could help differentiate races more.
> 
> And I like the idea of making backgrounds beefier with (for example) weapon proficiencies.
> 
> On the DM side, I'd like more support for a lot of subsystems like travel, social encounters, high level wealth sinks, etc. Level Up is doing the Lord's work in this area.
> 
> Monsters are a little dull. Higher level monsters don't hit hard enough. Spell lists on monsters typically provide a lot of suboptimal choices that make it hard to discern the combat loop for said monster. I would have liked to see minions/mobs to provide a bit more variety in the types of battles.
> 
> All of that said, 5E is really good, and I'm not sure it gets enough credit for how elegant the core of the system is.



6e would be most likely really similar in a lot of areas to 5e


----------



## Remathilis

Oofta said:


> Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but 5E is still growing by double digits. So I disagree that "the vast majority" of people don't like 5E. Take a look at some of the responses and there are a few minor commonalities that I see pop up like how we handle race/culture and backgrounds. But other than that? If you distilled the ideas down into workable rules and hashed out some minor differences I think you'd still see a half dozen different incompatible games.
> 
> The ideas aren't bad or wrong in any way, but different people have different ideas on what "better" looks like. It likely would be better, _for them_. If I tried to do a new edition? It would probably work out as well as the Homermobile.



True, but nature of the changes are less "I would fix the ranger's favored enemy" and more "I would change the ranger a spell-less wildness warrior" or "we don't even need a ranger class at all" level of changes, which to me suggested that people want a 6e that is again more different than similar to 5e. 

Maybe it's the nature of the speculation thread, but its a good thing the next edition isn't being designed by committee.


----------



## Remathilis

Double post.


----------



## overgeeked

Aldarc said:


> Moving stat bonuses to Background and Lineage to reflect your training is a pretty solid choice.



Or move the +2 stat bonus to your class. Leave the +1 for background and/or lineage. Just indicate they cannot stack, so your +1 becomes a floating +1.


----------



## Steampunkette

Alternatively: Get rid of Stat Bonuses altogether.

Just make the Point Buy/Standard Array already include the attributes.

Though if we have to keep stat bonuses I'd rather see them tied to Class and Background rather than Race. Or Class and Culture. That way we avoid both racial essentialism and cultural essentialism as things.


----------



## Oofta

Remathilis said:


> True, but nature of the changes are less "I would fix the ranger's favored enemy" and more "I would change the ranger a spell-less wildness warrior" or "we don't even need a ranger class at all" level of changes, which to me suggested that people want a 6e that is again more different than similar to 5e.
> 
> Maybe it's the nature of the speculation thread, but its a good thing the next edition isn't being designed by committee.



Which is the problem, right?  I mean, I don't even know why we have a ranger any more.  You could have a couple of subclasses with wilderness rogue and a fighter with pets.  

But even if it's not designed by committee you're going to have to make compromises because you can't please everyone.  As I said in another thread, 5E may or may not be the "best" at any particular style or niche but overall it's the "okayest" version so far.  I think for the majority of people it's "good enough".


----------



## Fenris-77

Steampunkette said:


> Alternatively: Get rid of Stat Bonuses altogether.
> 
> Just make the Point Buy/Standard Array already include the attributes.
> 
> Though if we have to keep stat bonuses I'd rather see them tied to Class and Background rather than Race. Or Class and Culture. That way we avoid both racial essentialism and cultural essentialism as things.



I'd like to see stat bonuses tied to a lifepath system, which is kinda like what you're saying, but not quite. Sadly, lifepath systems need to be bespoke by setting in order to really hum along. Or friggin' massive to cover most eventualities. Neither seems likely.


----------



## Argyle King

I thought of some other things:

The index would be improved. I feel that's one area which wasn't organized very well. 

I would add some way to indicate which classes could choose each spell. Likewise, a list of ritual spells would be helpful.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> Gotta go now but maybe more later.



But could you maybe go into more specifics next time?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Minigiant said:


> Goblin, Hobgoblin, and Bugbear added to PHB.



You might be the first person I've run across with that level of enthusiasm for bugbears. What's the appeal?


----------



## Fenris-77

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You might be the first person I've run across with that level of enthusiasm for bugbears. What's the appeal?



Reach.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

TwoSix said:


> Yea, that's where I am.  The requirement to keep it compatible with existing books (which means we can't really change class structure) is too much.



Shhh: This is a simulator to see what a 2024 edition that's _not_ a full 6E could potentially be, while maintaining what appear to be WotC's restrictions on 5E books.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Umbran said:


> I find someone whose work I enjoy, but is a more qualified game designer than I am, to handle it.



That puts you in violation of the NDA. I hope you're not fond of your eyebrows.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

vincegetorix said:


> Grab Rob Shwalb and ask him: ''why did you keep all your best ideas for your own system instead of sharing them with the team when working on the 5e PHB?!''
> 
> I mean, take Shadow of the Demon Lord, make it a little more generic fantasy in terms of flavor and your all set:
> 
> Ancestries with some weight behind it.
> Stackable Dis/Advantage that dont break the bounded accuracy.
> All combination of class/specialization/prestige class are possible. You can be a mage, specialized as a berserker with a diplomat mastery.
> Fast/Slow turn to make initiative a little less passive.
> Themed magic! You can now be a fire mage, or summoner or time traveler, or enchanter etc
> You Str score determines your proficiency with weapons and armors, not your class.
> Still remarkably close to DnD 5e.



I suspect @vincegetorix knows about it, but for folks who want a Shadow of the Demon Lord take on more traditional D&D, keep an eye on Schwalb's Shadow of the Weird Wizard, coming at some point in the future.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sithlord said:


> some third party company is out there waiting for the day wotc makes a radically new edition of the game that doesn’t resemble d&d.



You can say Paizo. It's not a secret.


----------



## Sithlord

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You can say Paizo. It's not a secret.



Might be a different company next time. Pathfinder 2E sucks


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> Might be a different company next time. Pathfinder 2E sucks



What's so bad about it?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sithlord said:


> Might be a different company next time. Pathfinder 2E sucks



I'm not sure who's big enough to step in, interested in D&D, and doesn't already have their own system. Necromancer/Frog God and Goodman Games are all that come to mind that are interested in D&D, other than Paizo. But post-4E, all three have their own systems they seem devoted to.

I guess someone like Mophidius or Free League could swoop in, but it would mean abandoning their current players, which I don't think they'd do.

I think of Renegade as being too small, but I suspect they're probably staffing up with the oWoD license.


----------



## Shardstone

Bard as a half-caster would work in a game with Burning Wheel-esque social mechanics, or different exploration mechanics. But Half-Caster Bard in current 5E is a complete dud. But...now I want to try it, and then build up a bunch of social mechanics around it that the Bard excels at.

Only for most people to tell me that they don't need mechanics for social RP and to tell me my ideas will never make it into anything, ala how some people in this thread act


----------



## overgeeked

Shardstone said:


> Bard as a half-caster would work in a game with Burning Wheel-esque social mechanics, or different exploration mechanics. But Half-Caster Bard in current 5E is a complete dud.



I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.


----------



## Minigiant

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You might be the first person I've run across with that level of enthusiasm for bugbears. What's the appeal?



Eat.
Sneak.
Sleep.
BASH!
Repeat.

Bugbears are only of the few STR/DEX iconic racial archetypes in D&D. Especially one of the few that is melee.

They are basically Lazy Melee Ranger the Race. You get to roleplay as a simple brute without being an oaf or an idiot.

Morroc thinks this quest is a lot of work for not enough gold. The thing you wish us to obtain is well guarded. Morroc would not leave his bed and oil his club such low pay.


----------



## Gladius Legis

overgeeked said:


> I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.



Only a couple of bard subclasses can claim "half-a-fighter" at all, and calling the class "half-a-thief" as a whole is a massive stretch. The only rogue-type feature they really get is Expertise. And the one bard subclass that can somewhat claim to be "half-a-thief" is widely considered the weakest bard subclass.

The only thing "laughable" here is your hyperbole.


----------



## Parmandur

So, as a starting principle, Ibwould maintain "modular" backwards compatibility with 5E: nit necessarily keeping things the same, but working the math to ensure that people could bring 5E characters to a 6E table without causing disruption, or use 6E characters in a 5E Adventure without needing to recalculate anything. So, nothing radical on the gut level. More specific changes:

- "Races": I would take Tasha's approach to Lineages, and bake it in Core, and  push it forwards a bit: make it easy for a DM and table to add in new Lineage options based on a player's ideas or the needs of the world.

- Replacing "Subrace" with "Culture," so that every PC mixes a Lineage with a culture, which cab be mixed and matched: Halflings raised by Dwarves, urbane Goliaths, etc.

- Backgrounds: I appreciate that they are mechanically perfectly equivalent in 5E, and I would like to keep that. I would take more of the fluff from some Classes and put them into Baclgrounds that are Class agnostic (looking at you, Monk).

- Classes: I would keep the current 13 Classes, promoting the Artificer, but some would receive significant changes: de-Orientalize the Monk (Mknasticsm is a Background, anyways), rebuild the Ranger extensively (make the usual Subclass choice be based on Favored Terrain: Underdark Rangers, Forest Rangers, etc), etc. Make every Class choose an Archetype at Level 1, which leads to

- Themes/Archetypes: Replace ""Subclass" with "Archetype" or "Theme," based off of the Strixhaven UA: many if not most Archetypes could remain focused on a single Class, but allowing for cross-Class options built into the system would be amazing (maybe based around Fighter-Rogue-MU-Cleric groupings). Allow a Fighter or Rogue to take Ranger Archetypes to have a "non-magic" Ranger, or have Fey Warlocks and Fey Sorcerers key off of similar abilities. 

Other than that, wouldnchange much at all.


----------



## Cadence

Steampunkette said:


> *Far Reaching Systems Changes:*
> 1) No longer a strict d20 System. d20s are a part of the game, but not the exclusive resolution of all systems.




Especially when something is competitive between two characters (whether PC, NPC, or monster), this seems huge.  There are some things random enough where my +1 bonus self might have a chance of beating a non-epsilon chance of doing better than a +10 bonus.  So if it's two people who know the rules playing a single game of MtG, maybe it's competing d20's with modifiers - anyone can get screwed/flooded, but there's still a skill difference.  But a typical just for fun chess player isn't going to beat or draw against the grandmaster, even if spotted a few pieces.  And even the master is probably not going to be able to pull it off very often. Maybe that's d4s with modifiers added.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

This 6th edition prefix is going to confuse people, I can see some ask "when did they release 6e, how the heck did I miss that?!?!"


----------



## Lanefan

Henadic Theologian said:


> This 6th edition prefix is going to confuse people, I can see some ask "when did they release 6e, how the heck did I miss that?!?!"



More to the point, why is it labelled "D&D 6E" when in the first post the OP insists that whatever's in the new PH has to be 5e compatible?

'Cause that's a huge difference.  If this new PH doesn't have to be 5e compatible then everything's on the table.  Forcing 5e compatibility acts as a significant straitjacket and, as an example, knocks out about 90% of the changes I'd make.


----------



## Greg K

I am still working on my list. However, I have seen a few things on my list already mentioned.

Race

Rename to Ancestry
Ancestries have lineages (e.g. Half-Dragons, Half-Elf, Half-orcs)
Culture split off from Ancestry
Culture:

replaces subrace
base cultural skill proficiencies, tool proficiencies, and cultural weapon groups, stone cunning, languages, etc. go here.
all ancestries/lineages have a culture
Environmental based cultures: Arctic, Aquatic, Coast, Desert, Forest, Grassland (Plains, Savannah, Steppes), Hills, Island, Jungle, Mountains, Underground, Wetlands (Bayou, Marsh, Swamp), urban, rural
Society: Foraging, Pastoral, Horticulture, Agrarian
? : Mageocracy, Military State, Political State, Theocracy,
Occupation based: ex. fishing, Mining.
some kind of combination of the above
include sample cultures for the ancestries/lineages
Classes

subclasses earlier for all classes. I prefer 1st level.
Rename the Barbarian (can't recall if this was mentioned)
Redsign the cleric
Redesign the monk for more customization or replace it with a Martial Artist class with Monk as subclass
Eldritch Knight split off into its own class: Arcane Warrior. Subclasses: Bladesinger, Duskblade, Eldritch Knight, Spellsword
add some other new classes
Add new skill proficiencies


----------



## overgeeked

Cadence said:


> Especially when something is competitive between two characters (whether PC, NPC, or monster), this seems huge.  There are some things random enough where my +1 bonus self might have a chance of beating a non-epsilon chance of doing better than a +10 bonus.  So if it's two people who know the rules playing a single game of MtG, maybe it's competing d20's with modifiers - anyone can get screwed/flooded, but there's still a skill difference.  But a typical just for fun chess player isn't going to beat or draw against the grandmaster, even if spotted a few pieces.  And even the master is probably not going to be able to pull it off very often. Maybe that's d4s with modifiers added.



Start with a base of success on an 11+/d20 (50%), compare the participants’ modifiers, then add the difference to the roll. So you have a +10 chess skill and I have a +2 chess skill, that’s a +8 to you. You make the roll with a +8. So you’d only fail on a 1 or a 2. Anything more than than a +10 difference is an automatic win/loss.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I'd keep the term Race, but make it clear it's the scientific definition of Race, not the social one.

 I'd have a separate Nationality for cultural elements and Background for more personal history.

 I'm have all the current PHB classes, but add Shadowcaster, Articifer, Psion, Priest (different from Cleric), and Warlord.

 I'd have subclasses (renamed) at first level, but bring back paragon paths and epic destinies for later levels.

 I'd have a piety system, but base it around concepts, so that it can be shared be between settings like Domains now.

 I'd expand the races to include the most common playable races in between settings, so for example Goblins, Centaurs, Minotaurs, Genasi, Aasimar, Loxodons, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Tritons, etc...


----------



## Sithlord

overgeeked said:


> Start with a base of success on an 11+/d20 (50%), compare the participants’ modifiers, then add the difference to the roll. So you have a +10 chess skill and I have a +2 chess skill, that’s a +8 to you. You make the roll with a +8. So you’d only fail on a 1 or a 2. Anything more than than a +10 difference is an automatic win/loss.



I’m not sure race is a scientific term. But I would make it clear that the term is being used as it would be used in the ancient world or in a medieval setting.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Seems like focusing on the rules is going the wrong way.

What I would do is leave a blank page where people can write in their story/house rules/gaming ideas/etc. Then I would maintain an online site where everyone can upload their personized pages so we can all see each other's ideas...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Races become less Rubberforehead human.
> Half Elf, Half Orc, Mul, and Quartling become sublineages of Elf, Orc, Dwarf, and Halfling respectively.



You have it backwarts... It is Threequartling...


----------



## cbwjm

I'd make races have a fixed stat (+2 dex for elves, +2 str for half-orcs & dragonborn) and a free ASI (like from a level up) which can be spent on stats, a feat, or a planetouched feature. This allows for a mountain dwarf to also have a fiendish, celestial, or elemental background but they have to give up that +2 bonus to another stat. This also means that there are no tiefling, aasimar, or genasi races since they are now part of the choices made for each race at character creation. Humans I'd likely change to have two free placement ASIs in addition to gaining a free language, tool, and skill. Maybe something else as well, not sure yet.

Not sure what I'd do with classes since I need to keep it compatible with other books so I won't be able to change around when classes gain their subclasses.

Backgrounds I'd make a little more robust. Skills, tools, languages would still be part of it, following the current structure, but I'd also have small bonuses gained as they level up, some actual mechanical features to the backgrounds. For instance, a mage guild graduate might have a couple of spells they can cast 1/day each (in addition to using spell slots). Speaking of this, I'd make it explicit that any spells gained from feats or racial backgrounds can be cast using spell slots as well.

I'd probably add an ability increase to a large number of feats that otherwise don't have one, savage attacker and skilled are good examples of feats that feel like they need a boost.


----------



## CleverNickName

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.
> 
> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.
> 
> What do you change? Do you eliminate darkvision for most races? Do you revamp the ranger and monk? Do you replace all the halfling art?
> 
> _What do you do?_



Oh man, I'd make about a hundred changes.  But for the sake of brevity in this thread, I'll just list my Top 3.

*#3:  Intelligence for Initiative and Ranged Attacks*
I've always thought that Intelligence was more about quick thinking than quick reflexes.  And aiming a projectile is just as much a mental exercise as a physical one...trajectory, drag, wind direction and speed, etc.  So I would fix it so that Initiative and ranged attacks both use the character's Intelligence score instead of their Dexterity score. 

*#2:  Condense the Classes and Subclasses*
I would have only four classes:  Cleric, Mage, Rogue, and Fighter.  All others would be subclasses of these four classes...with a bit of overlap, depending on how you want your character to focus.  For example, Barbarian and Monk would both be subclasses of Fighter.  Paladin would be a subclass of either the Cleric or the Fighter, depending on whether or not you wanted your character to focus more on martial combat or healing magic.

The same thing for Subclasses.  Eldritch Knight would be available for both Fighters and Mages, and Arcane Trickster would be available for both Mages and Rogues.  This would let you decide if you wanted a full caster or half-caster version.

*#1.  Backgrounds Alone Determine ASIs*
An elf who grew up in the city and spent 8 years at the Mage's Guild will have different strengths and weaknesses than his identical twin brother who grew up on a farm and spent 8 years breaking horses and hunting wildebeests.  So all ability score increases will be determined by a character's Background, not their Ancestry and not their Class.   If you have the Soldier background, you get a +2 to Strength and a +1 to Con.  If you have the Adept background, you get a +2 to Intelligence and a +1 to Charisma.  And so forth, for every background.

There are a number of other, smaller changes that I would make (I would eliminate darkvision for all races, I would enshrine spell points as the standard and bury "Vancian" magic in the DMG as an optional rule...) but these three are the ones I feel strongest about.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.



This is incredibly bad math. Like, 1 attack, and no special abilities, weapon skills, or Feats, and that's "half a Fighter"? I feel like if I ordered a pizza with you and we "both had half", I'd come back into the room and see you'd eaten 3/4s of it, and were saying "I left half!" lol.

That is just criminal and talking of criminals, "half a thief" huh, I noticed the complete lack of DPR abilities and that fact that unless you pick Eloquence Bard, literally any type of Thief can literally be better than you at social abilities, the thing you're supposed top dog at. Really keeping up with the Thief for sure.

This is some of the absolute worst, most illogical argument I've ever seen. I was expecting some kind of sane justification, but this is just absolute arrant nonsense of the first water lol. You could at least try!

You seem to be thinking of some imaginary Bard who is, simultaneously, a Lore Bard, a Valor Bard, and I dunno, some kind of fancy-ass Bard that doesn't even exist - maybe both an Eloquence Bard and a Blade? That only four subclasses! Everyone has four subclasses right?

Also, by your "Half a Fighter" logic, almost every class in D&D 5E is "Half a Fighter" lol. Wow. Terrible, terrible arguing. I grade this an F.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CleverNickName said:


> I've always thought that Intelligence was more about quick thinking than quick reflexes. And aiming a projectile is just as much a mental exercise as a physical one...trajectory, drag, wind direction and speed, etc. So I would fix it so that Initiative and ranged attacks both use the character's Intelligence score instead of their Dexterity score.



I mean I'm not trying to be sassy, but only someone who hasn't regularly fired a bow or shot a gun, let alone thrown a javelin (especially not under time pressure) or the like could possibly ever think that's an intelligence-based activity. It's mostly reflexes and training, training, training. You might make a case that STR is important to damage, that's fair. You might make a case for like double proficiency bonus because training is key. You could never make a case that it's INT. Seriously get out there and fire some bows, trying to fire fast (at least one arrow every six seconds, preferably at the heaviest draw you can manage) and come back and tell us how it's about "intelligence".

Siege weapons are entirely a different matter though - they are obviously INT-heavy, as you're able to stand around and calculate trajectories.

Initiative you could make a good case for INT. Wasn't in an alternative to DEX for 4E for Initiative or something? Maybe I'm thinking of a Feat.


----------



## CleverNickName

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean I'm not trying to be sassy, but only someone who hasn't regularly fired a bow or shot a gun, let alone thrown a javelin (especially not under time pressure) or the like could possibly ever think that's an intelligence-based activity.



False.  I threw javelin in Track & Field, and I've spent a few hundred hours at a firing range.  (Also, you shouldn't make assumptions about how other people might think.)


----------



## Raith5

Remathilis said:


> Now taking this as a very biased an unscientific observation, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of people here don't appear to like 5e in it's current format. The changes are old chestnut (race/lineage, class list and design, alignment) and seem to fall into the "reverse this change to how it was done prior" or the "they didn't go far enough with the changes" boats. I'm not sure if that says more about the game or the community here at ENworld...



I think people are just spitballing because the weird WOTC survey and because thinking about this stuff is just what EN world does! Personally while I like 5e I have played it enough to a) see its problems clearly and b) be open to new options and ideas - even if that means a new edition.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CleverNickName said:


> False.  I threw javelin in Track & Field, and I've spent a few hundred hours at a firing range.  (Also, you shouldn't make assumptions about how other people might think.)



Well then how the hell do you think that's true? It's obviously false. I've done all three activities regularly when I was younger. Obviously in D&D terms I would have a relatively high INT for better or worse, but the idea that I was standing there calculating trajectories on anything but the slowest-ass laziest stuff is just ludicrous. It's absolutely unreasonable. You going to try and tell me the smart kids were good at javelin? Because they sure as hell were not. Our top javelin guy was one of the dumbest kids in the year, just really tall, long-limbed and kinda strong.

It's particularly as you must know that people can't even throw far or accurately without a lot of practice and a lot of strength.

I used to be a particularly good clay pigeon shooter, to the point where I was better than adults, when I was aged 10-14, and it certainly wasn't down to "intelligence" and "calculating trajectories". Sure I could see where to aim, but a lot of people as smart as me or smarter, like, say my brother, were absolute nowhere near as good at shooting moving targets.

Or even just go watch some videos of people firing the kind of high-pull medieval bows used in D&D, and firing them rapidly, YouTube is full of them, come back and tell me how brainy those dudes are and how it's their brains and not the fact that they have the dexterity to aim and load a 160lb-pull long bow and the staggering strength to fire it and keep firing it.

Ironically the one sport certain of the smarter kids did excel at was fencing, possibly because of the lightning-fast back-and-forth and the need to track right-of-way as you fenced. I could easy smash someone's guard aside in saber when I suddenly started getting bigger, but that didn't mean I necessarily had right-of-way.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah as Gladius says, I've never seen a half-caster Bard not in official material, not in unofficial material, that wasn't _complete and utter trash_ of the most crummy kind of a mechanical level, and usually not at all fun to play either (I say this as someone who has played multiple Bards in every edition from 2E to 5E, as well as various other D&D-related games).



I can't agree with you there at all. The 3.0 and PF bards were utter trash, but the 2e and 3.5 ones were fine. As for the 1e bard I don't know what Gygax was on when he printed it. 

The secret to the 2e bard was that it used the thief xp table, putting it a level ahead of the wizard at low levels and with a better hot dice, and the game soft capped at level 9 or 10. It's less trash than a low level wizard, gets armour and weapons, and from memory gets second level spells at exactly the same time as the wizard and fourth level spells only one wizard level later. 

And the 3.5 bard was tier 3 with a spell list that really took advantage of having some spells at a discount level. Tier 3 isn't trash - it's just not playing caster supremacy. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> And what's interesting to me is, the people keen on the idea of a half-caster Bard? _Almost_ universally don't like or long-term play Bards.



I do - I've probably played more bards than any other class. I want it in its own design space the way the warlock and artificer are. We already have five spell spamming classes. I want a bard that either harmonizes with or syncopates with the party, either amplifying everyone's strengths or smoothing over and covering their weaknesses. 

My current thoughts are that a harmonising bard shares around one ability from each other party member based on their class. So if you have a barbarian who rages then the bard's harmonic war cry 1/day let's everyone else in the party including fighter, cleric, or bard (or even wizard) join in the rage. And if you have a rogue then the bard can as a bonus action cause a synchronised distraction to allow a party member to disengage or hide as a bonus action on their turn. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> They're just offended by the concept of full-caster Bards, aesthetically.



Nope. I just find that with the existence of five other full casters in the PHB a sixth is boring. If it's the only way to make a ard that's up to the mark, then so be it. It's at least better than 3.0 and Pathfinder trash and closer to balance than 3.5 managed. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> To hell with that! I started in 2E. The 2E Bard might technically _seem_ like a half-caster, but in practical terms, no, because of XP. I was literally casting 5th-level spells before the Elven Fighter/Mage in my party was, back in 2E, and not far behind the actual full-on Mage.



As you say. The 2e bard wasn't trash. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean to be fair, only one Bard sucked, and that was the 3.XE Bard. 2E you levelled like a rocket and had access to a really good selection of stuff re: fighting, sneaking, and spelling, with music and lore to complete the package. 3.XE, you were just terrible.



Unless you knew what you were doing in 3.5 when you had unique and broken spells like Glibness, had a 2e like ability to get spells like Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Otto's Irresistible Dance sometimes even before the wizard, and there were enough ways of stacking bonuses to Inspire Courage that I gave the entire party +4 to hit and damage at level 3, and could maintain it for ages. Even the wizard was occasionally charging and stabbing orcs to death. 

Pathfinder broke literally all that. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> 4E Bard was extremely solid, fun, and well-themed.



Agreed


Ruin Explorer said:


> 5E Bard is a powerhouse like all the 5E full casters and is great fun to play.



And is just the sixth powerhouse full caster. I want more.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> I do - I've probably played more bards than any other class. I want it in its own design space the way the warlock and artificer are. We already have five spell spamming classes. I want a bard that either harmonizes with or syncopates with the party, either amplifying everyone's strengths or smoothing over and covering their weaknesses.



Yeah I don't include you, you seem to have decent ideas. I mean, to be completely honest I'd tear up my character sheet ahead of playing a Bard that worked like the harmonizing Bard you suggest - and make a Warlock - (also like a lot of multi-person buffers they'd be incredibly hard to balance with varying party-sizes, useless in tiny ones and broken-OP in bigger ones), but I get that it's just a suggestion and at least you're trying to think of ideas. I don't think any idea that invalidates pre-existing Bard concepts is viable though and that sort of thing kind of does. 4E has a bit of stuff a bit like that, but it was all optional and there were other powerful ways to be a Bard.

Re: the general point of their own chassis, yes, but I'd like to see that for a lot of classes and I doubt we will, sadly. Not before like 7E (no typo). I suspect sadly the only real way to balance things so full casters balance with other classes is still to pull down the top-end power of full casters a fair bit, and to move towards some kind of scenario where long/short rest class dichotomy is resolved (which would be at least 6E so outside the scope of this thread I think).


----------



## Mecheon

Aside from basic quality of life stuff (The better dragonborn, renaming it to anything other than 'race', etc.), I'd add orcs and goblins and reorganise the races so they're all together. I'd probably just make half elves and half orcs sub-lineages of orcs and elves to boot

Also I'd be doing 90% of that to spite anyone who dislikes tieflings and dragonborn being core, and my eternal love of gnomes, but, y'know how it be.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

Gladius Legis said:


> There was a half-caster bard in the playtest, and it was godawful. No to half-caster bards.




That's why we need the three-quarters caster bard, the perfect compromise between two weak and too strong. (If we can have quarter casters like Arcane Trickster and half casters like Paladin than we can have three quarters casters too).


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

Change default assumed setting to Eberron.

Eberron races added to PHB.
Drow subrace removed.
Stat adjustments - Go with the Tasha's version but each race has a "Suggested Stat Adjustment" entry that says something like "A typical member of this race is very [Stat descriptor] and [Stat descriptor] so recommended Stat adjustments are +2[stat] and +1[stat].
Change Race to something else.  Use Ancestry to start a fight?
Add Orc ancestry, oh wait we did that in step one for Eberron.
Add Half-Dwarf Ancestry, add rules subsystem so that Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Half-Dwarf are add-ons to any base ancestry.  So you're not automatically Half-Human.  You can be a Half-Dwarf Gnome, or a Half-Elf Orc OR a Half-Orc Elf (which are mechanically different).
Add Ancestry features so that your ancestry affects your character development as you level (like ancestry feats do in PF2)

Cut bards to make up page count [joke]

Add the Artificer to core.

Modify classes so ALL classes get their subclass at Level 1
Just for larfs, completely overhaul Wizards subclass system.
-Remove all specialist subclasses.  Specialist is now a single subclass.
-Add 3+ more Sub-classes.  Metamagic Wizard.  War Wizard.  Geomancer.


----------



## CleverNickName

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well then how the hell do you think that's true? It's obviously false.



It's safe to say that we don't agree, and we won't agree, on this topic.  Let's move on.


----------



## Malmuria

1) *Usability, layout, and design*

think in terms of two page spread
"cruch" langauge should be to-the-point, fluff language should be brief but evocative
cross reference pages, make a good index, and use the inside covers for important information
character sheet should be easy to follow and a teaching aid for new players

2) Character creation should take 15 min max with limited page flipping.
- choices related to ancestry, class, background, culture, feats, etc should be summarized in tables and flowcharts and have minimal overlap

3) Default PHB should go from levels 1-10, and should support a simple game, whether one focused on social encounters or one that is low-ish fantasy.  Advanced PHB can cover levels 11-20 and include mechanical complexity for those that want it.
- this would split the game into Basic and Advanced without calling it that

Bonus

Take all remaining 5e dmgs and throw them in the trash where they belong
make a dmg that has useful advice and a usable layout


----------



## DnD Warlord

I would create a series of choices for each class at each level.  I would make a “basic” version of each class where those choices are made for you as the simple most iconic version.

I would also give outlandish powers as options for martial characters.

1 every class starts with X number of combat feats and Y number of non combat talents.  Skills and spells will all fall into these

so a fighter would start with 4 combat feats and 2 non combat talents   A wizard would start with 2 combat feats and 4 non combat talents.    There would be a list of general of each, then a “power sources” list then a class list.  Every 2 levels you would get 1 more of the one you started with 4 of, and every 3 levels you get one of the ones you started with 2 of.  

some of these would have level prereqs.

I would also scale back HP but front load them.  Every class would start at 1st level with Con score hp.  At level 2 and every even level you will get a HD. Hit dice will be d8s for fighters D6s for rouges and cleric and D4 for wizard and monks. At odd levels you will get a set number of HP epithet +1 or +2 or +3.  
So at level 20 a fighter with a 20 con would have 10d8+32hp


----------



## DnD Warlord

Next modifications to race.  Make 1 or 2 traits for race come at level 1 and 1 or 2 traits from background then at level 5 and 7  you can choose 1 more of either. Each race and background have 3-5 choices at least 1 can’t be taken until level 5 

give prestige class/paragon path abilities at level 10+ and build in epic destinies at level 21


----------



## Aldarc

Neonchameleon said:


> I do - I've probably played more bards than any other class. I want it in its own design space the way the warlock and artificer are. We already have five spell spamming classes. I want a bard that either harmonizes with or syncopates with the party, either amplifying everyone's strengths or smoothing over and covering their weaknesses.
> 
> My current thoughts are that a harmonising bard shares around one ability from each other party member based on their class. So if you have a barbarian who rages then the bard's harmonic war cry 1/day let's everyone else in the party including fighter, cleric, or bard (or even wizard) join in the rage. And if you have a rogue then the bard can as a bonus action cause a synchronised distraction to allow a party member to disengage or hide as a bonus action on their turn.



IMHO, part of my own problem with the Bard is that there is a LOT of conceptual "mental magic" overlap with the Wizard Enchanter and the Wizard Illusionist or even the Arcane Trickster. Sometimes I get the feeling that the Wizard occupies almost too much monopolized conceptual space around magic in the game. I almost wonder if one generalized mind magic class would suffice. I have something in mind here like the Guild Wars 1 & 2 Mesmer. Then to make it a "bard," one grabs the Entertainer or Bard background. 

I'm just spit-balling here, and this does not reflect how I would do a revised 5e, but, rather, me just throwing my thoughts out there like paint splattered on the wall.


----------



## Flamestrike

5 minute short rests/ 2 per long rest as core.

Id prefer it if they also included alternate rules for everything to key off 'per encounter' abilities like ToB and SWSE and balanced things around encounter difficulty as well (instead of balancing stuff in the context of a whole 6-8 encounter adventuring day).

Even if only to stop all the continual arguing about class balance, encounter difficulty and so forth that the current paradigm causes, and the same threads from popping up every few days.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, part of my own problem with the Bard is that there is a LOT of conceptual "mental magic" overlap with the Wizard Enchanter and the Wizard Illusionist or even the Arcane Trickster. Sometimes I get the feeling that the Wizard occupies almost too much monopolized conceptual space around magic in the game. I almost wonder if one generalized mind magic class would suffice. I have something in mind here like the Guild Wars 1 & 2 Mesmer. Then to make it a "bard," one grabs the Entertainer or Bard background.
> 
> I'm just spit-balling here, and this does not reflect how I would do a revised 5e, but, rather, me just throwing my thoughts out there like paint splattered on the wall.



I think this is misunderstanding why people play Bards if you're thinking they'd just switch to "mind mage". You're looking at concepts that have later been applied to Bards, and working outwards from there, not to like, why the class exists or what people actually want from it. It's a common issue and it's why the 3E Bard existed and was so extremely bad ("people play this dumb class because they suck and just want to sing dumb songs, right?" seems to be the 3E attitude lol).

What people want from a Bard is absolutely not "mind magic" as some central focus. That might be what a lot of people want from, say, a Psion, or Mesmer/Enchanter, or even, dare I say it, a Wizard, but in general people aren't saying "Yo I want to mind-control people and crush their wills and force them to do my dark bidding!" and picking "Bard" as a class unless their next step is to pick one of two specific colleges (out of eight possible - "I wanna fight in melee" is equally popular as a college theme, note - Valor and Swords).

What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely _not_ dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.

You can see this through the various editions:

1E's Bard is a mess, but is clearly expressing the "master of none, decent at several" theme. I understand there's one in a Dragon issue which is a lot closer to the 2E one.
2E's Bard is a true Jack-of-all-Trades - and then the kits which come out express different Bardic themes wonderfully - you will notice how few are music-first, but rather refer back to storytellers, loremasters, performers, and so on.
3E's Bard is an inversion of this design, going from master of none to bad at all, a pointless support class who is roundly inferior to a Cleric even at that. This is part of 3E's general hostility to 2E, and attempts to "wind the clock back".
3.5E's Bard tried to fix this, and improved the situation, but didn't get all the way, and then Pathfinder just trashed Bards again (and yes I have played a PF Bard).
4E's Bard went back to looking at what players wanted through a 4E lens of roles - it gave Bard the Leader role with the Controller secondary, which was a good approach, and expressed a general Jack-of-all-trades style, with a lot of helping people and a lot of flashy magic - most of it _not_ mind-control or music.
5E's Bard perfectly understands what Bard players have wanted and has been pretty iconic of 5E (esp. among younger players) as a result. It's a Jack-of-all-trades again - yes it's most powerful as a caster, and close in power to other casters, but its spell list and other limitations keep it under control, and the various themes are expressed through the Bard subclasses - again, the majority of them are not about mind-magic or even music. Speech is actually the main theme, I'd say - "Words of..." abilities being common. Only the Glamour and Whispers subclasses really seem mind-magic-oriented.

Anything that ends up with the Bard "focused" on a specific thing like "mind magic" or "buffing others" and little else is not really going to be a D&D Bard because the dilettante spirit is part of their concept. I do think them being a full caster in 5E is a bit of a kludge, but the only real way to fix it would be to make major changes to other parts of the game to stop slot-based spells stealing so many concepts for magic and reduce the top-end power of casters. Several (most?) classes in 5E have design elements that are a bit kludge-y and speak to them being finished in a hurry, and Bard is one of the least-bad cases.


----------



## Sithlord

Malmuria said:


> 1) *Usability, layout, and design*
> 
> think in terms of two page spread
> "cruch" langauge should be to-the-point, fluff language should be brief but evocative
> cross reference pages, make a good index, and use the inside covers for important information
> character sheet should be easy to follow and a teaching aid for new players
> 
> 2) Character creation should take 15 min max with limited page flipping.
> - choices related to ancestry, class, background, culture, feats, etc should be summarized in tables and flowcharts and have minimal overlap
> 
> 3) Default PHB should go from levels 1-10, and should support a simple game, whether one focused on social encounters or one that is low-ish fantasy.  Advanced PHB can cover levels 11-20 and include mechanical complexity for those that want it.
> - this would split the game into Basic and Advanced without calling it that
> 
> Bonus
> 
> Take all remaining 5e dmgs and throw them in the trash where they belong
> make a dmg that has useful advice and a usable layout



It grates on my nerves that the PHB would only go from 1-10. I use 11-20 and beyond a lot. And i been buying PHB since 1E and RC. I would feel cheated not getting the full game. But... I have to admit that so few people play the 11-20 game that it would probably just allow more and better material in the PHB for levels 1-10. This is an example of an idea that sounds bad at first, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Personally in ever saw the need for an epic handbook. That’s just level 13+ For me.


----------



## Parmandur

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> That's why we need the three-quarters caster bard, the perfect compromise between two weak and too strong. (If we can have quarter casters like Arcane Trickster and half casters like Paladin than we can have three quarters casters too).



The 3/4 Caster is actually an interesting idea that remains unexplored in the game.


----------



## Parmandur

Raith5 said:


> I think people are just spitballing because the weird WOTC survey and because thinking about this stuff is just what EN world does! Personally while I like 5e I have played it enough to a) see its problems clearly and b) be open to new options and ideas - even if that means a new edition.



For me, it's the Tasha's Lineagw changes and the Subclasses that go across Classes in the Srrixhave UA. Those are sufficient great ideas that I'd want to see baked into Core.


----------



## jasper

Cut the number of OFFICAL races in half. Remove darkvision from half the remaining races. 
Insert death by max age.  Cut the life of long live races by half. So Elf only live to maybe 600.
Floating +2, +1 would option and no non human race would have more+2,+1.So mountain dwarf is getting nerfed.
No Trace or other thingy which allows a long rest in 4 hours. 
Encounters geared for 3 to 5 per day and change the stat blocks as necessary. 
Soul/health siphon on all the books. As y'all read and play, I get healthier and more rich.


----------



## Sithlord

Parmandur said:


> The 3/4 Caster is actually an interesting idea that remains unexplored in the game.



They are basically full casters without the 9th level slot in 5E. That’s is. I think the original poster on the 3/4th caster was making a joke.


----------



## Parmandur

Sithlord said:


> They are basically full casters without the 9th level slot in 5E. That’s is. I think the original poster on the 3/4th caster was making a joke.



Maybe they were, but a character who gets that 3/4 progression in exchange for something else is legitimate design space that is a visible gap in the DMG charts on Spell progression.


----------



## Shardstone

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, part of my own problem with the Bard is that there is a LOT of conceptual "mental magic" overlap with the Wizard Enchanter and the Wizard Illusionist or even the Arcane Trickster. Sometimes I get the feeling that the Wizard occupies almost too much monopolized conceptual space around magic in the game. I almost wonder if one generalized mind magic class would suffice. I have something in mind here like the Guild Wars 1 & 2 Mesmer. Then to make it a "bard," one grabs the Entertainer or Bard background.
> 
> I'm just spit-balling here, and this does not reflect how I would do a revised 5e, but, rather, me just throwing my thoughts out there like paint splattered on the wall.



I think you're right that the Wizard takes up too much magical space.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think this is misunderstanding why people play Bards if you're thinking they'd just switch to "mind mage". You're looking at concepts that have later been applied to Bards, and working outwards from there, not to like, why the class exists or what people actually want from it. It's a common issue and it's why the 3E Bard existed and was so extremely bad ("people play this dumb class because they suck and just want to sing dumb songs, right?" seems to be the 3E attitude lol).
> 
> What people want from a Bard is absolutely not "mind magic" as some central focus. That might be what a lot of people want from, say, a Psion, or Mesmer/Enchanter, or even, dare I say it, a Wizard, but in general people aren't saying "Yo I want to mind-control people and crush their wills and force them to do my dark bidding!" and picking "Bard" as a class unless their next step is to pick one of two specific colleges (out of eight possible - "I wanna fight in melee" is equally popular as a college theme, note - Valor and Swords).
> 
> What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely _not_ dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.
> 
> You can see this through the various editions:
> 
> 1E's Bard is a mess, but is clearly expressing the "master of none, decent at several" theme. I understand there's one in a Dragon issue which is a lot closer to the 2E one.
> 2E's Bard is a true Jack-of-all-Trades - and then the kits which come out express different Bardic themes wonderfully - you will notice how few are music-first, but rather refer back to storytellers, loremasters, performers, and so on.
> 3E's Bard is an inversion of this design, going from master of none to bad at all, a pointless support class who is roundly inferior to a Cleric even at that. This is part of 3E's general hostility to 2E, and attempts to "wind the clock back".
> 3.5E's Bard tried to fix this, and improved the situation, but didn't get all the way, and then Pathfinder just trashed Bards again (and yes I have played a PF Bard).
> 4E's Bard went back to looking at what players wanted through a 4E lens of roles - it gave Bard the Leader role with the Controller secondary, which was a good approach, and expressed a general Jack-of-all-trades style, with a lot of helping people and a lot of flashy magic - most of it _not_ mind-control or music.
> 5E's Bard perfectly understands what Bard players have wanted and has been pretty iconic of 5E (esp. among younger players) as a result. It's a Jack-of-all-trades again - yes it's most powerful as a caster, and close in power to other casters, but its spell list and other limitations keep it under control, and the various themes are expressed through the Bard subclasses - again, the majority of them are not about mind-magic or even music. Speech is actually the main theme, I'd say - "Words of..." abilities being common. Only the Glamour and Whispers subclasses really seem mind-magic-oriented.
> 
> Anything that ends up with the Bard "focused" on a specific thing like "mind magic" or "buffing others" and little else is not really going to be a D&D Bard because the dilettante spirit is part of their concept. I do think them being a full caster in 5E is a bit of a kludge, but the only real way to fix it would be to make major changes to other parts of the game to stop slot-based spells stealing so many concepts for magic and reduce the top-end power of casters. Several (most?) classes in 5E have design elements that are a bit kludge-y and speak to them being finished in a hurry, and Bard is one of the least-bad cases.



This reads like a gish gallop of condescension. I don't care for it one bit.


----------



## AnotherGuy

For starters

1. Implement the silver standard.
2. No dead ability scores (i.e. give purpose to the odd numbers)


----------



## Parmandur

Shardstone said:


> I think you're right that the Wizard takes up too much magical space.



Well, there was an early experiment being done by Mearls to make a Psion that worked by manipulating Concentration and using Spell Slots as a magnifying resource. That's something wild enough that paring the idea down to a 3/4 caster gold make sense.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> This reads like a gish gallop of condescension. I don't care for it one bit.



Your whole "people who want Bards just want Mind Mages, we should delete their class and replace it with Mind Mages who just like, took a Background" is completely condescending and makes vast and sweeping assumptions, so it's pure hypocrisy to say that lol.


----------



## Aging Bard

Ruin Explorer said:


> 1E's Bard is a mess, but is clearly expressing the "master of none, decent at several" theme. I understand there's one in a Dragon issue which is a lot closer to the 2E one.



I assume you are referring to Dragon #56. That version of Bard drops thieving abilities, which I do not like, but is otherwise fine. Frankly, the very original Bard from Strategic Review Vol. II No. 1 was solid, very much the jack-of-all-trades. The mess of 1e seems to have been a way to limit its fighter level, but that could have been done more simply as a single-class character.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely _not_ dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.



So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Your whole "*people who want Bards just want Mind Mages,* we should delete their class and replace it with Mind Mages who just like, took a Background" is completely condescending and makes vast and sweeping assumptions, so it's pure hypocrisy to say that lol.



Ruin, I said nothing of the sort. I would kindly appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. You can go back and read my post again yourself if you don't believe me. I made it abundantly clear at several points that I was mostly pondering and spit-balling as part of my own personal musings. You are inventing a series of strawmen arguments that were not part of my original post and then top it off with accusing me of being a hypocrite and a mocking "lol." 



TwoSix said:


> So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.



The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.



Not an FF class expert here I must admit so I don't fully know the implications, but they seem to Jack-of-all-trades caster with their own special casting ability, not bad. Certainly close to how most D&D Bards are than the FF Bard-classes I've seen, which tend to be pretty wild (and likely impossible to replicate in tabletop, at least in some cases).


Aldarc said:


> Except I said nothing of the sort, Ruin. Go back. Read it yourself if you don't believe me. I made it abundantly clear at several points that I was mostly pondering and spit-balling as part of my own personal musings.



Okay fair enough, maybe I overreacted a bit (though I'm not sure my argument is actually wrong) but you were "musing" about _straight-up deleting_ Bards, a class I've played regularly for 30+ years, and replacing them with "mind mages with a background":


Aldarc said:


> I almost wonder if one generalized mind magic class would suffice. I have something in mind here like the Guild Wars 1 & 2 Mesmer. Then to make it a "bard," one grabs the Entertainer or Bard background.



Sucks if you feel my detailed explanation as to _why not_ do that is somehow insulting, but you're not exactly the first person to suggest deleting Bards because you think they could be replaced with some sort of "mind wizard", so it's not addressed solely at you. Another common suggestion I thought to debunk in the process, which you didn't even mention, was the "music mage", where people think Bards are solely about playing instruments or singing - it's a common theme but it's a part of what Bards are, not their sole focus. And I do find these suggestions usually come from people who don't really play Bards.

I have to say I don't really get why Bards get singled out for this kind of stuff. They're a class with a long history and distinctive traits, which regularly get totally ignored in favour of "just delete them and replace them with X" where X is a fundamentally different concept (often an interesting one worthy of its own class).

I guess it does happen to other classes. Rangers often get the "Just make them a Fighter with Nature proficiency!", Paladins have been given "Just take a few levels in Cleric!" for a long time, Warlocks get told their class is just a theme for another caster, and I bet if we dug long enough we could find someone telling Rogues/Thieves that really they should just be a Fighter with some proficiencies or something lol.

I do agree that Wizards maybe have a bit "too much" spell-wise. I think they need to maybe be recast as the "do everything" caster rather than "THE Caster which everyone else is merely a pale shadow of!".


Aldarc said:


> The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.



That's really not coming across in the examples I can find of the Red Mage. He appears to be a Jack of all trades caster, whereas the Mesmer in GW1/2 is a tightly focused mind/illusion caster (it was my main in GW2, note, and I always had one in the party in GW1) who was particularly focused on debuffing and interrupting enemies.

But like I said, I'm not an FF expert. Does the FF Red Mage also focus on mind/illusion spells?


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.



Yea, I think the dilettante concept and the mentalist concept both have traction within the "charismatic magic entertainer" box, which is really what the bard needs to hit, stereotypically.  

Should the bard have access to every wizard or cleric spell, but just get them slower?  Is it better if they have exclusive spells, but can't cast wizard or cleric iconic spells like fireball and raise dead?  I think reasonable people can disagree here.  

PF2 does the most thorough job conceptualizing the bard's magic, as they're the primary occult casters, focused on mental and spiritual magic.  If a future PHB had a more defined cosmology in this style, it would probably be easier to define the magic that a bard could use.


----------



## Dire Bare

Jumping in without reading the thread . . . .

If WotC hired me to do the next edition's PHB . . . well, that probably wouldn't be good for the game, but . . .

I'd create four base classes for the "starter" or "OSR" version of the rules, the warrior, mage, mystic, and rogue. Each class would essentially be the class itself and a "basic" subclass combined, with the subclass being replaceable in the "advanced" rules. The advanced rules would have additional classes based on the now classic 13 classes (12 from the PHB + artificer).

These basic classes would be designed with minimal choice points to introduce folks to the game and for OSR style play. The warrior would essentially replace the fighter (not sure why, but I've always hated the class name). The mage would take the place of the wizard as a "core" class, but there could still be a separate wizard class in the advanced rules. Same with the mystic replacing the cleric.


----------



## Steampunkette

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not an FF class expert here I must admit so I don't fully know the implications, but they seem to Jack-of-all-trades caster with their own special casting ability, not bad. Certainly close to how most D&D Bards are than the FF Bard-classes I've seen, which tend to be pretty wild (and likely impossible to replicate in tabletop, at least in some cases).
> 
> Okay fair enough, maybe I overreacted a bit (though I'm not sure my argument is actually wrong) but you were "musing" about _straight-up deleting_ Bards, a class I've played regularly for 30+ years, and replacing them with "mind mages with a background":
> 
> Sucks if you feel my detailed explanation as to _why not_ do that is somehow insulting, but you're not exactly the first person to suggest deleting Bards because you think they could be replaced with some sort of "mind wizard", so it's not addressed solely at you. Another common suggestion I thought to debunk in the process, which you didn't even mention, was the "music mage", where people think Bards are solely about playing instruments or singing - it's a common theme but it's a part of what Bards are, not their sole focus. And I do find these suggestions usually come from people who don't really play Bards.
> 
> I have to say I don't really get why Bards get singled out for this kind of stuff. They're a class with a long history and distinctive traits, which regularly get totally ignored in favour of "just delete them and replace them with X" where X is a fundamentally different concept (often an interesting one worthy of its own class).
> 
> I guess it does happen to other classes. Rangers often get the "Just make them a Fighter with Nature proficiency!", Paladins have been given "Just take a few levels in Cleric!" for a long time, Warlocks get told their class is just a theme for another caster, and I bet if we dug long enough we could find someone telling Rogues/Thieves that really they should just be a Fighter with some proficiencies or something lol.
> 
> I do agree that Wizards maybe have a bit "too much" spell-wise. I think they need to maybe be recast as the "do everything" caster rather than "THE Caster which everyone else is merely a pale shadow of!".
> 
> That's really not coming across in the examples I can find of the Red Mage. He appears to be a Jack of all trades caster, whereas the Mesmer in GW1/2 is a tightly focused mind/illusion caster (it was my main in GW2, note, and I always had one in the party in GW1) who was particularly focused on debuffing and interrupting enemies.
> 
> But like I said, I'm not an FF expert. Does the FF Red Mage also focus on mind/illusion spells?



So... If I were to be -forced- "Delete the Bard"...

I'd make it into a Rogue Subclass that can trade in sneak attack damage per turn to create other effects. They'd have their full spellcasting, but the list would be fairly limited to Conjuration, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation.

I'd give them Healing Performances where your song/dance/inspiring oration/whatever allows you to split your sneak attack dice between 6 targets within range as healing and make it a limited number of times per day or per short rest. Do something similar for trading in sneak attack dice to give allies attacks or other functions... Make Sneak Attack Dice their primary "Martial" resource while Spellcasting is their primary "Magical" resources.

Plus they'd get a lot of skills and other rogue abilities 'cause they'd be rogues, but would be using their Sneak Attack dice for other purposes so kind of lag in overall rogueliness.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

But I would -much- rather have Bards exist as a full class of their own. Preferably with some unique mechanics rather than just a variety of mechanics lifted from other classes.


----------



## Greg K

Ruin Explorer said:


> What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely _not_ dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.






Ruin Explorer said:


> 5E's Bard perfectly understands what Bard players have wanted and has been pretty iconic of 5E (esp. among younger players) as a result. It's a Jack-of-all-trades again - yes it's most powerful as a caster, and close in power to other casters, but its spell list and other limitations keep it under control, and the various themes are expressed through the Bard subclasses - again, the majority of them are not about mind-magic or even music. Speech is actually the main theme, I'd say - "Words of..." abilities being common. Only the Glamour and Whispers subclasses really seem mind-magic-oriented.
> 
> Anything that ends up with the Bard "focused" on a specific thing like "mind magic" or "buffing others" and little else is not really going to be a D&D Bard because the dilettante spirit is part of their concept. I do think them being a full caster in 5E is a bit of a kludge, but the only real way to fix it would be to make major changes to other parts of the game to stop slot-based spells stealing so many concepts for magic and reduce the top-end power of casters. Several (most?) classes in 5E have design elements that are a bit kludge-y and speak to them being finished in a hurry, and Bard is one of the least-bad cases.



I don't want bard's by default as dilettante/jack of all trades with sword in hand. I want them as a full caster focusing on Enchantment, Illusion, with some buffing/debuffing, some divination, and some healing, and some nature spells (I might even use charm Speech and music would be important for Enchantment. Lore should also be important.

If the next edition does subclasses at first level, I want to see the default class weapon proficiencies being simple weapons and then other weapons built into the subclasses.  The lore bard (simple weapons + short sword, longsword), the valour bard (martial weapons), and the additon of a troubadour bard that is more "roguey" (simple weapons + shortsword, rapier, hand crossbow*). I'd also add a subclass that does the 2e Meistersinger for the Disney Princess (simple weapons).

* which I will promptly house rule out


----------



## Aldarc

@Ruin Explorer, I was not singling-out the bard. The bard was just what was being discussed at the time. The other classes were not subject to my whimsical musings, because they weren't pertinent. I have played my share of bards in 3e, PF1, 4e, and 5e, including a kobold bard. I do happen to like bards. I have also played a lot of psionics, clerics, and druids, and I would undoubtedly have my own set of controversial half-serious brainstorming takes about those classes too. 

I honestly wasn't expecting that I was going to get accused in my casual musings of deleting the bard and just making a "mind wizard." If anything, the opposite. I was half-expecting that people would accuse me of deleting the Wizard Enchanter and Illusionist and giving their stuff to the Bard. 

Again, I will fully admit that my take regarding the Bard has been shaped a lot by the Mesmer in Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2, which covers a lot of similar conceptual space as an illusionist/enchanter/fast-caster/duelist/chanter. It's also a fun class that I enjoy playing. 

I understand that D&D is committed to its legacy archetypes, but I also have been influenced in my thinking by both Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and class-based fantasy design in computer games (e.g., WoW, GW, Diablo, etc.). In Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, he took a step back with classes and asked himself more about the sort of playstyles that people liked playing and he designed his classes around that: e.g., skill monkey (Akashic), heavily-armored warrior (Warmain), swashbuckler/skirmisher (Unfettered), gish (Mage Blade), beast-master (Totem Warrior), master of magic (Magister), the healer (Greenbond), etc. And when people say that there is conceptual overlap between the Enchanter, the Illusionist, the Bard, the Psion, the Aberrant Sorcerer, etc., I wonder if there could be a mind mage to capture that in one class. After all, Starfinder basically took the Shaman, the Psion, the Cleric, the Druid, etc. and put them under the single intuition-guided Mystic class. I thought that was pretty darn neat. 

I don't think that we would be better off without the bard or with a mind mage. Because when I do think of the sort of casters are commonly found in computer games, I do think that there is generally a standard caster (e.g., mage, wizard, sorcerer, black mage, etc.), the "dark" caster (e.g., necromancer, warlock, etc.), the support caster (e.g., priest, cleric, white mage, monk, etc.), the summoner (e.g., summoner, warlock, necromancer, witch doctor, etc.), and/or the mind caster (e.g., mesmer, WoW priest, cipher, etc.) or various combinations thereof. I _do_ wonder if the cleric is trying to be too much, and I do wonder if the Paladin and War Priest aspect of the Cleric would be better as a single class separate from a lightly-armored support caster (e.g., Priest). I do wonder if there are other ways than the classes we have to express the archetypes that we find ourselves drawn to play. 

It's not because I feel or think that I know what's best about the bard or that I hate bards or anything like that. It's simply me imagining "what if..."


----------



## IndigoTraveler

Halflings get Powerful Build.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

On the subject of bard, since WotC came up with Expert sidekick, this is my version of them:

d8, 
prof with light, medium amors, simple weapons.
Saves: dex/cha

1: spellcasting
Artificer progression, aka 1/2 spellcaster with cantrips

1: Inspiring Performance (aka Expert's Helpful feature)
Bonus action help with a 30 ft range.

2: Jack of all trade
2: Song of Rest

3: Archetypes
3: Bardic Knowledge (expertise in 2 lore skills)

4: ASi

5: Archetype feature

6: Countercharm
6: Battle Harmony (Coordinated strike from Expert)
When helping an attack, your attacks deal  +2d6 on a hit against the same target hit by the helped ally.

7: Magical Inspiration
After using Help, your spells damage or heal +1d6.

8: ASI

9: Song of rest improves
9: Bardic Knowledge improves.

10: Magical secrets
Pick any spell from any list from a level you can cast. 1/long rest free cast.

11: Inspiring Help
When using Help, the target can add 1d6 in addition to the advantage to the roll. If its an attack, you can forgo the bonus to hit to add it to the damage instead. The bonus increases to 2d6 at level 20.

12: ASI

13: Song rest improves

14: Archetype feature
14: Magical secret

15: ------

16: ASI

17: Song of rest improves
17: Countercharm Improves:
When using Countercharm, allies have advantage on saves against magic effect.

18: Magical Secret

19: ASI

20: Inspiring Help improves.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.



This is a wild take. Bards don’t contribute more than any other full caster to a given scene.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg K said:


> I don't want bard's by default as dilettante/jack of all trades with sword in hand. I want them as a full caster focusing on Enchantment, Illusion, with some buffing/debuffing, some divination, and some healing, and some nature spells (I might even use charm Speech and music would be important for Enchantment. Lore should also be important.



Ok but I've demonstrated that historically that's not what they've been. So what you want is at odds with their history, including their recent history (as in 5E they are very much "sword in hand" even if they aren't getting multiple attacks). You're basically describing the Loremaster subclass and nothing else. That would be akin to suggesting all Paladins should be Oath of Vengeance or something.


Aldarc said:


> I _do_ wonder if the cleric is trying to be too much, and I do wonder if the Paladin and War Priest aspect of the Cleric would be better as a single class separate from a lightly-armored support caster (e.g., Priest).



Clerics are an accidentally-created class that have been a mess in in every edition and after 2E, been a borderline-OP mess. And yeah the line between them and Paladin has always been a confusing one. But I don't think D&D needs to be looking at drastic changes here, because at this point, it's become self-defining. The time for drastic changes was 3E, essentially, and Monte flubbed it - which is why he tried to re-write history with Arcana Unearthed (which I love, but is basically 100% an apology for 3E, or from another perspective a "What I actually wanted to do with 3E!").

I don't think videogames are a good model to pursue with tabletop RPGs though. Videogame class divisions are serving a different purpose, a lot of the time. Thinking about classes as roles can have some value, but in the end, historically videogames have tended to divide stuff up in order to do things like force people to reroll their character a lot and spend more time playing their game, or to really simplify concepts because they were too hard for players, and obviously I think we all know any non-combat aspects of classes in videogames tend to get stripped away (slowly but surely) and replaced with more combat-oriented functionality, which again tends to point them towards narrow focuses. WoW, for example, has like 40-ish subclasses, most of which play like entirely separate classes - I think it's quite a good example of how videogames tend to keep separating stuff out and separating stuff out. Talking of Clerics, WoW does a kind of interesting thing, I think more naively than consciously, which is that the Paladin in WoW is basically both the D&D Cleric and the D&D Paladin, pretty clearly, but the Priest is a separate class entirely with is more like a combination of 4E's Invoker, and 3E/4E's Psion, with a bit of a Far Realm theme to the some of the Psion stuff.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> That would be akin to suggesting all Paladins should be Oath of Vengeance or something.



Just kibbitzing, almost all pre-4e Paladins map to the 5e Oath of Devotion. I'm sure there must be someone somewhere who wants that back.


----------



## Greg K

Ruin Explorer said:


> Ok but I've demonstrated that historically that's not what they've been. So what you want is at odds with their history, including their recent history (as in 5E they are very much "sword in hand" even if they aren't getting multiple attacks). You're basically describing the Loremaster subclass and nothing else. That would be akin to suggesting all Paladins should be Oath of Vengeance or something.



No. I said I want more going to the subclass than the default class to better catch the flavor of different bards


Ruin Explorer said:


> Clerics are an accidentally-created class that have been a mess in in every edition and after 2E, been a borderline-OP mess. And yeah the line between them and Paladin has always been a confusing one. But I don't think D&D needs to be looking at drastic changes here, because at this point, it's become self-defining. The time for drastic changes was 3E, essentially, and Monte flubbed it - which is why he tried to re-write history with Arcana Unearthed (which I love, but is basically 100% an apology for 3E, or from another perspective a "What I actually wanted to do with 3E!").



How did Monte drop the ball with 3e clerics? Not that I am huge fan of Monte's work (I am not), but he was not the one in charge of development. He, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet contributed to all three books, but he was not the lead or the person in charge of the design of the PHB.  The lead was Jonathan Tweet, who took over after Peter Adkison (the founder of Wizards of the Coast) stepped down from leading the project. Tweet was also the person in charge of the design of the PHB, while Monte Cook was in charge of writing the DMG (and Skip was in charge of writing the Monster Manual)


Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think videogames are a good model to pursue with tabletop RPGs though.



agreed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> Just kibbitzing, almost all pre-4e Paladins map to the 5e Oath of Devotion. I'm sure there must be someone somewhere who wants that back.



Oh I know, but I was endeavouring to point out he wanted to swap Bards to something that they hadn't been, historically, where they always have been dilettantes with swords (except 3E, where they were just singing idiots). Hence I didn't pick Oath of Devotion and yeah absolutely there are people who want that - there was a "What subclasses would you do in a new PHB?" thread a while back and like multiple people just put in Oath of Devotion and those two other dumb Oaths which are just "Oath of Devotion except more heal-y" and "Oath of Devotion with more movement and really underpowered" or w/o, like where the aesthetics and vibe and so on are identical to Oath of Devotion. I thank the stars that WotC know better than to narrow classes down in 5E. Every 5E character had subclasses which at least tried to open it up conceptually a bit initially and has got more with time.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg K said:


> How did Monte drop the ball with 3e clerics? Not that I am huge fan of Monte's work (I am not), but he was not the one in charge of development. He, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet contributed to all three books, but he was not the lead or the person in charge of the design of the PHB.



I'm being unfair, I'd forgotten Tweet was in charge - it was Tweet who dropped the ball, so AU is more "What I'd have done if I were in charge".


----------



## Sithlord

Parmandur said:


> For me, it's the Tasha's Lineagw changes and the Subclasses that go across Classes in the Srrixhave UA. Those are sufficient great ideas that I'd want to see baked into Core.



I would like to see odd levels being class features and even levels being subclass features.


----------



## Horwath

Hmm, where to start;

1. Races no longer provide ability score bonuses(penalties). At least not base ones.

2. Ability scores and modifiers go 1-for-1. I.E. 10 is +0, 11(+1), 9(-1), etc...

3. Point buy: 16pt pool
9(-1): 0 pts
10(+0): 1 pt
11(+1): 2 pts
12(+2): 3 pts
13(+3): 5 pts
14(+4): 8 pts

4. Separate pool for ASI's, Combat feats and exploration/social feats.

5. Sub-classes for all classes at 1st level.

6. Add 10th level spells for full casters at 19th level.

7. Remove simple/martial weapon split. All weapons are at martial level. All are proficient with all weapons. 
Fighting style(s), Extra attack(s), martial maneuvers, investment in STR/DEX will differentiate martial from non martial character well enough.

8. Remove medium armor. Add buckler with light armor for +1 AC. Normal shield comes with heavy armor proficiency.

9. HDs healing replaced by 4E style of healing surges(25% of max HPs), number per long rest depends on class and extra feat(ures).

10. Short rests removed or made really short. I.E. 1 minute with 2 or 3 limit before long rest.

11. Long rest 10hrs long with 8hrs sleep. Elves can wiggle down this to 6hrs(4+2).

12. Races(lineages) now only add "genetic" abilities.
I.E. ALL elves have keen senses. so they could have proficiency+expertise in Perceptions.
Humans are versatile and fast learners, so they get +2 skill proficiency of choice.
Half-elves are in between so they get proficiency in Perception, plus one skill of choice or expertise in Perception(to describe stronger elven blood).
Low-light vision/darkvision is also genetic, so is base speed and forms of movement in addition to walking(swim, burrow, climb, fly, teleport).
So are resistances and immunities to various type of damage or spells.
Dwarves are tough so they get extra HPs, resistance to poison and disease or similar things.

Culture and/or background can add most of bonus skills to characters or maybe armor proficiency or fighting style.

13. add 2/3rd caster: 1st level spells at 1st level(but less spell slots than full caster at 1st level), 
2nd level spells at 4th level,
3rd at 7th,
4th at 10th,
5th at 13th,
6th at 16th,
7th at 19th.

14. completely try to avoid getting brand new abilities at higher levels. 
Base level of all abilities should be acquired by levels 10 or 11.
After that it should be just improvement on existing abilities and/or more usage per rest.

15. you can only get 4 long rests outside "relative" safe place. After that you need extended rest. 3 nights in a row at a safe "haven".
5th long rest in a row(and after) only recharges HPs, up to half healing surges and exhaustion cannot be improved above 2nd level if any.
no other "per long rest" abilities are recharged and you get only one short rest to use between long rests.

think of this as "weekday/weekend" mechanics.

16. return of "max dex modifier" for every type of armor. That way we can avoid having least amount of dex or max amount of dex characters.
I.E. padded armor could have max dex of +6 and fullplate of +0. 

Light armor:
padded: 11 AC, max dex +6
leather: 12 AC, max dex +5
studded leather: 13 AC, max dex +4
hide: 14 AC, max dex +3

heavy armor:
scale: 14 AC, max dex +4, disadvantage on stealth
breastplate: 15 AC, max dex +3, disadvantage on stealth
chainmail: 16 AC, max dex +2, disadvantage on stealth
halfplate: 17 AC, max dex +1, disadvantage on stealth
plate: 18 AC, max dex +0, disadvantage on stealth


17. Multiclassing can only be done with 2 classes, and both need to be within one level of each other. No cheesy dips.


----------



## Aldarc

edit: never mind


----------



## Ruin Explorer

This ignore system produces some unfortunate results lol.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> This ignore system produces some unfortunate results lol, neither was meant for you for anyone reading this lol.



I've taken to opening a new private window tab for posts that seem to be complete non-sequiturs, just to see who and what someone is responding to.


----------



## Oofta

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I've taken to opening a new private window tab of posts that seem to be complete non-sequiturs, just to see who and what someone is responding to.



Yeah, not being able to see someone's post that's ignoring me is just odd.  Especially when you see a post that is obviously replying to someone and you can't see what they're replying to.


----------



## Stormonu

I think that the bard and the ranger both have been hit hard by 5E’s ”everybody’s got a little skill in all areas”.  While it’s great that 5E characters can better cover gaps from missing classes in a party, both the ranger and the bard weren’t given abilities to keep them relevant and distinct.

I really think the bard’s Bardic Performance needs a boost - and should be able to be taken in a direction that augments their own actions or gives a party-wide boost; and that the bard can switch between the two as much as the rogue is expected to sneak attack.

The ranger is really hurt by the underdeveloped exploration tier.  Their “wilderness” skills just don’t cut it in 5E, and they need more non-spell abilities so they aren’t the Two-weapon or Bow Fighter in Studded Leather With Awesome Hair.

Also, I think it’s a pity Rangers and Paladins didn’t get cantrips, if they’re going to be given spells.  Lay on Hands and Smite really seem like they ought to be transferred to cantrips.  Favored Foe and other wilderness tricks (Unerring Track?  Swift Pursuit? Hunter’s Eye?) might help the ranger as cantrips.


----------



## Krachek

I’m in charge! Personally I don’t change anything.
But I will use the old way: survey, play test, interview with popular streamer and content producer, all the answers are there!


----------



## Zaukrie

Not sure what ALL I'd do....but I'd start with this:

A very small set of spells every spellcasting class had access to (different for each class). Sub classes would add to that, so that different flavors of wizards were actually different from each other. I understand this would likely not be popular, btw.

I'd put A LOT more into clerics being different depending on what they worshipped. Why do they all kind of get the same powers? Again, this might not be popular, but I think moreso than the above.

I'd convert the paladin into a holy warrior class whose powers were, again, dependent on what they worshipped. Holy warrior is probably not the right name, more like "idea warrior"....this class does what it does for reasons, not for fame/fortune/whatever.

All fighters would have access to some set of cool things the rules say they can do.

I'd do something with the old skills thieves used to have, seems all jumbled now.

I'd go with lineage, culture, background. Background would be the most important thing for what skills you start with. I'm not sure how the heck I'd handle how an orc is different from a dwarf. Like, I think they are all people, but is appearance really the only difference? So complex...so complex. Culture would be where you grew up....like the city? or tribe? or underground? background is what you did there. Culture also gives you some skills (did you grow up travelling a lot? or in a farming area even if you didn't farm?).


----------



## Mecheon

Ruin Explorer said:


> But like I said, I'm not an FF expert. Does the FF Red Mage also focus on mind/illusion spells?



Nah, you got it in one. The Red Mage is a hybrid class. Can equip better weapons and armor than a dedicated spellcaster, and generally have stuff for quicker spellcasting, plus can learn a hybrid of spells from both black and white magic, but make up for it with lower stats and not being able to get the higher end magic the specialists get.


----------



## Parmandur

In the original Final Fantasy, the Red Mage is pretty transparently the BECMI Elf Class, the Black Mage is the standard Magic-User, and the White Mage is the Cleric. DOwn to specific weapon proficiencies and Spells.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> In the original Final Fantasy, the Red Mage is pretty transparently the BECMI Elf Class, the Black Mage is the standard Magic-User, and the White Mage is the Cleric. DOwn to specific weapon proficiencies and Spells.



Ohhhh wow interesting. I always heard FF was based on early D&D but I didn't know it was that direct!


----------



## DammitVictor

EDIT: I had no intention of posting this.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Ohhhh wow interesting. I always heard FF was based on early D&D but I didn't know it was that direct!



Oh, goodness, is it ever blatant. That wasn't super-odd at the time, the whole JRPG scene, which predates Final Fantasy by a bit, was doign it.

The original Final Fantasy has monsters like Mindflayers, Beholders, Tiamat, Bulettes, etc. The big baddies are the Princes of Elemental Evil.

The English version...changed a few names.


----------



## Mecheon

The Mindflayers still show up, even. Although you'd barely recognise D&D Bahamut and FF Bahamut were based on the same idea


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Parmandur said:


> In the original Final Fantasy, the Red Mage is pretty transparently the BECMI Elf Class, the Black Mage is the standard Magic-User, and the White Mage is the Cleric. DOwn to specific weapon proficiencies and Spells.



I never was able to get through the early FF games, but I used to love a web comic about a Black Mage comic that used screenshots, as I recall. I'd love a reflavoring of the classes along these lines, as previously mentioned when discussing Ravnica's clerics.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Hmmm...given as I haven't actually played D&D in forever, and am mostly follow things for lore purposes, it is hard to say. I know I would personally like a more lore-centered PHB (though still have room for mechanics and stuff to, you know, help players). I realize this would probably deter people though. But I would like more pages dedicated to each race/species, their history (which can influence PCs), culture, the gods, cosmology, etc. That's what I always look for, anyway.


----------



## Tinker-TDC

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I never was able to get through the early FF games, but I used to love a web comic about a Black Mage comic that used screenshots, as I recall. I'd love a reflavoring of the classes along these lines, as previously mentioned when discussing Ravnica's clerics.



8-bit theater was great!


----------



## JEB

In general:

Wizards should try its damnedest not to leave anyone behind who liked 5E as it was. Ideally, nothing from the 2014 PHB should be removed, though changes are to be expected.
Every change from the 2014 PHB - even changes originating in later sourcebooks that _seem_ broadly popular if you ask folks on forums, Reddit, or Twitter - should be run by the player base as a whole through polling. Any change that doesn't have overwhelming support (say, 75% or greater) should be left out of the core rules.
In addition, poll players for their favorite race, class, background, feat, and spell options from non-core 5E books - anything that gets at least 75% support should strongly be considered for inclusion in the core rules.
Changes in lore are fine, but it should be possible to reconcile any new lore with established lore. Retcons are preferred over reboots, and additions that contradict nothing previously established are preferred over retcons. (For example, adding more types of drow besides Lolth-worshippers is good. Pretending Lolth-worshipping drow never existed is bad.)
Alignment is retained, but it's explicitly presented as descriptive and not prescriptive.
Bonus actions are also retained.
Character races:

Changing the term to "species" is fine, but not required. Though if "race" is retained, it would be wise to clarify that it's as in "the human race" and not a reference to ethnicities.
Separate character race (physical traits) and culture (skills and proficiencies), with the latter replacing the current subraces. (Yes, this means traits such as innate spellcasting and Superior Darkvision will be treated as cultural differences.)
Every race and subrace from the 2014 PHB should be included in some form, and orcs should be added as a core race. (Duergar and svirfneblin would also be nice additions, but not required.)
Rewrite lore as needed to address concerns about real-life analogies, but without completely wiping away the established portrayals. (This will be a tricky task but worth it, I think. The player who wants to be the gruff dwarf or arrogant elf should still be able to do so without feeling like they're doing something wrong.) Integrating lore modifications from 5E's run, such as the elf lore from Mordenkainen's, is encouraged.
Every character race should present at least two cultures, with different recommended skills and alignments that are also described as flexible. More than two cultures each is even better. Emphasize that you can also ignore these default cultures and build your own, and that advice for such will be provided in the DMG. (Then live up to that promise.)
Floating ASIs are the default assumption, but every race and culture should have a recommended quick build for the +2 and +1, respectively (and it shouldn't just be "optimize them for your class").
There should be heavy playtesting and polling on how to handle humans. However, variant human remains a variant; feats are not core.
Cultures should be designed to be interchangeable between different races, and this should be encouraged. The classic half-orcs and half-elves are what happens when human PCs have orc or elf cultures applied, or orc or elf PCs have human cultures applied.
Classes:

Integrate any Tasha's changes that meet the 75% polling threshold. Except for "fighting styles" that grant cantrips to non-casting classes, because that one just bugs me.
Subclasses should be recalibrated to all begin at level 1, with new traits being available at the same levels throughout every class. However, while now feasible, interchangeable subclasses should not be included in the core rules.
All classes should have at least three subclass options. I would strongly recommend adding the swashbuckler and hexblade to the core, at minimum.
Fighters should have a very simple assortment of combat maneuvers by default, but the bulk should remain exclusive to the battle master, which should also get more warlord-like features.
As tempting as it may be, do not replace the wild magic sorcerer's table with a heap of entirely useful options. Keep it weird.
The hexblade's features should either be integrated into the base class's Pact of the Blade, or (if hexblade is included as a core subclass) the Blade features should be made hexblade exclusive.
More space should be dedicated to the idea of clerics, druids, paladins, or warlocks losing their abilities if they stray from the path, and how to handle that, but also that whether or not this happens is something that should be decided by the DM and player before play begins.
Spells:

Spell levels are called, well, anything other than spell "levels". Ranks, circles, tiers, something.
Bring back the one-line descriptions in the spell lists from 3E, because they were super handy.
Sorcerers don't get "named" spells (i.e. Mordenkainen's whatever), which become exclusive to wizards. Sorcerers either get similar (but distinct) replacements with general names, or (better yet) brand-new spells that wizards _don't_ get.
Other:

Include more examples of play, especially for confusing elements like surprise.
Include tables in the back for randomly generating characters, because it's fun. Copying over the history tables from Xanathar's would be nice too.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Ohhhh wow interesting. I always heard FF was based on early D&D but I didn't know it was that direct!



Final Fantasy was based on early D&D, though it has since developed its own tropes and archetypes. However, the Red Mage is not a Bard, which is a separate job in Final Fantasy. The Bard in Final Fantasy is a straight-up support minstrel and sometime archer (FFXIV).

Guild Wars 1 was based on Magic the Gathering, but instead of assembling a play deck, you are assembling a set of abilities for your PC and their companions and changing the loadout for missions. The initial five gods were based on the Magic colors too: Lyssa (Blue), Balthazar (Red), Melandru (Green), Dwayna (White), and Grenth (Black).


----------



## Stalker0

While there are innumerable details I might consider changing, there are a few philosophies I would want to adjust:

A focus on variable numbers of encounters
At the end of the day, this is my biggest philosophical beef with 5e....the notion that the balance of the game is principled around 6-8 encounters exclusively. That is very far away from the narratives I run in my games.

Similar to healing variants, I really want some strong thought to adjusting the game to a more 2-3 encounter model.... even if it is just a variant section of the DMG. I want a series of changes to classes and monsters to better fit my style of gaming.

A rework of concentration
I fully understand the reasons concentration exist, and they are good reasons. But mechanically, concentration remains a clunky mechanic. It can require lots of dice rolling, its very easy to forget if your not paying good attention....and it really limits the variety of spells I see in the game.

My players really chafe under concentration, and its probably the number 1 thing they complain about.

So I would like to go back to the drawing board here. Probably my number 1 thing is just split the two "types" of concentration into some other form. Currently there is the "we want this spell to be interruptible" and there is the "we want to limit stacking with this spell". Most spells don't need to be both, but by slamming both together in a single mechanic you create something that poorly serves both.

The middle ground of money
I don't want to go back to 3e's magic item shop, but I also think 5e has so little reward for gold that my players joke about gaining "useless gold". there needs to be a middle ground, something players can spend money on that gives them tangible benefits....again we don't need full magic item power here....but something to make all that treasure worth something.


4e monster design
4e did a lot of wrong things, but monster design was not one of them...at least not by the later books. Monsters were interesting, with neat abilities. Further, the role system really helped the DM at a glance put together a competitive group against a party....because 4e recognized a fundamental dnd truth....it takes a party to beat a party.

5e monsters are quite boring in comparison


An index worth a damn
I feel like the indexes have been getting worse with each new edition, I get that this is not sexy....but my lord are the indexes bad sometimes.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Clerics are an accidentally-created class that have been a mess in in every edition and after 2E, been a borderline-OP mess. And yeah the line between them and Paladin has always been a confusing one. But I don't think D&D needs to be looking at drastic changes here, because at this point, it's become self-defining.



Sadly, yes. I would probably prefer a "white mage" or a unarmored/lightly armored priest class. There are obviously ways to do that in 5e (e.g., Divine Soul Sorcerer, Celestial Warlock, etc.), but they are not entirely satisfying ones for the archetype. I am glad that 4e began to walk back the heavily armor cleric a little bit. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> The time for drastic changes was 3E, essentially, and *Monte flubbed it *- which is why he tried to re-write history with Arcana Unearthed (which I love, but is basically 100% an apology for 3E, or from another perspective a "What I actually wanted to do with 3E!").



I don't think this is an entirely accurate reading. It's a bit revisionist, and I suspect that it's because Monte Cook was simply one of the most prominent designers who talked about the game. But Monte Cook was not the lead designer of 3e. Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer. I believe there is even an article or forum thread here on ENWorld within the past year or so where Tweet talks about the design decisions behind the 3e Cleric. I don't think that's something that can just be pinned on Cook as if he were the scapegoat of 3e's questionable design choices. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think videogames are a good model to pursue with tabletop RPGs though. Videogame class divisions are serving a different purpose, a lot of the time. Thinking about classes as roles can have some value, but in the end, historically videogames have tended to divide stuff up in order to do things like force people to reroll their character a lot and spend more time playing their game, or to really simplify concepts because they were too hard for players, and obviously I think we all know any non-combat aspects of classes in videogames tend to get stripped away (slowly but surely) and replaced with more combat-oriented functionality, which again tends to point them towards narrow focuses.



Even if video game RPGs are designed mostly about combat, I think that video game designers understand that people are drawn to play certain class archetypes/playstyles and design their classes accordingly. I have been playing TTRPGs for 20 years, which is admittedly not long in the grand scheme of things, and in that time nothing has changed. There is nothing new under the sun. I have time and time again seen players - even those who have years of experience playing pen 'n' paper TTRPGs - say they "want to play a class like X___" where X is a class or archetype from a video game: e.g., "How can I play a Diablo 2/3 style Necromancer in D&D?" or "How can I play a super heavily armored warrior?" Class playstyle and fantasy is important to a lot of players. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> WoW, for example, has like 40-ish subclasses, most of which play like entirely separate classes - I think it's quite a good example of how videogames tend to keep separating stuff out and separating stuff out.



The WoW specs are more akin to subclasses. You still get a lot of core class abilities and mechanics. FWIW, I don't think it's that far removed, for example, of the Eldritch Knight and Champion Fighter subclasses playing quite differently or likewise the Swashbuckler and the Arcane Trickster Rogues playing quite differently. Not every class has good subclass distinctions in D&D 5e. (I'm looking at you Wizards). 

However, one of the reasons why Warcraft has the design it currently does with its specializations was because people wanted their specializations to be equally viable and the team wanted each specialization to embrace different class fantasies and layered mechanics. IMHO, even if the different specializations of druid, for example, play differently, they still very much feel like playing the Druid, though in the early days of WoW (Classic & BC) there was more form shifting than present. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> Talking of Clerics, WoW does a kind of interesting thing, I think more naively than consciously, which is that the Paladin in WoW is basically both the D&D Cleric and the D&D Paladin, pretty clearly, but *the Priest is a separate class entirely with is more like a combination of 4E's Invoker, and 3E/4E's Psion, with a bit of a Far Realm theme to the some of the Psion stuff.*



Again, see the Starfinder Mystic, which is part priest, shaman, druid, and psion.

If there was a start-from-scratch approach that didn't need to follow the game's legacy, I would consider adopting something like this that distinguished between the heavily-armored Paladin/Arcana Evolved Champion and the lightly-armored, wisdom-based Mystic that you could layer a Priest, Shaman, Healer, Psion, etc. on top of.


----------



## Don Durito

Stormonu said:


> The ranger is really hurt by the underdeveloped exploration tier.  Their “wilderness” skills just don’t cut it in 5E, and they need more non-spell abilities so they aren’t the Two-weapon or Bow Fighter in Studded Leather With Awesome Hair.



Hey.  They don't even get the awesome hair!.

No wonder people aren't happy with the Ranger!


----------



## Zardnaar

Hardcore edition. Comes with dueling swords with 911 engraved on them.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> The WoW specs are more akin to subclasses. You still get a lot of core class abilities and mechanics.



To be clear, I don't really agree that this is the case in 2021 and this has in fact been a major point of contention in the WoW community. It _used to be_ true, a decade or more ago, but basically from Cataclysm and WoD, the specs diverged outwards so that they had entirely different mechanics (and indeed became clearly separated instead of just about points placement), where before they'd shared a huge number. This was because it made them a lot easier to balance. This intentional separation continued to increase until Shadowlands really (IIRC they said they were dialing it back slightly in Battle for Azeroth, but didn't do so meaningfully), where a number of long-lost cross-spec abilities were reintroduced, mostly in extremely nerfed forms.

I could go on about this, but it would be extremely boring for everyone. I would refer those who want examples to the history of Paladins in WoW,  who went from one class which you could basically lightly orient towards DPS, healing, or tanking, sharing literally 90%+ of abilities on launch in 2004, to by 2016-2020, basically three separate classes with entirely different roles, different mechanics on a basic level, three entirely different primary resources, and in whilst they shared a few names of abilities, even those abilities functioned very differently. In late 2020 with SL they moved them to nominally sharing the same resource (Holy Power) but the functionality of all three specs is at least as different as say, a D&D Cleric, a D&D Paladin, and a D&D Barbarian. When WoW launched it was a bit more like say Vengeance, Devotion and uh whatever that healy Paladin subclass is called. I.e. some different spells but the core of the class is the same.


Aldarc said:


> Guild Wars 1 was based on Magic the Gathering, but instead of assembling a play deck, you are assembling a set of abilities for your PC and their companions and changing the loadout for missions. The initial five gods were based on the Magic colors too: Lyssa (Blue), Balthazar (Red), Melandru (Green), Dwayna (White), and Grenth (Black).



Yeah I noted MtG was the main inspiration for GW1 in another post. It made the design a lot sharper and cleaner than most CRPGs/ARPGs. It's a pity they didn't really stick with that influence into GW2, seemingly trying to come up with more of their own thing with the single-classing and weapon-based abilities.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be clear, I don't really agree that this is the case in 2021 and this has in fact been a major point of contention in the WoW community. It _used to be_ true, a decade or more ago, but basically from Cataclysm and WoD, the specs diverged outwards so that they had entirely different mechanics (and indeed became clearly separated instead of just about points placement), where before they'd shared a huge number. This was because it made them a lot easier to balance. This intentional separation continued to increase until Shadowlands really (IIRC they said they were dialing it back slightly in Battle for Azeroth, but didn't do so meaningfully), where a number of long-lost cross-spec abilities were reintroduced, mostly in extremely nerfed forms.
> 
> I could go on about this, but it would be extremely boring for everyone. I would refer those who want examples to the history of Paladins in WoW,  who went from one class which you could basically lightly orient towards DPS, healing, or tanking, sharing literally 90%+ of abilities on launch in 2004, to by 2016-2020, basically three separate classes with entirely different roles, different mechanics on a basic level, three entirely different primary resources, and in whilst they shared a few names of abilities, even those abilities functioned very differently. In late 2020 with SL they moved them to nominally sharing the same resource (Holy Power) but the functionality of all three specs is at least as different as say, a D&D Cleric, a D&D Paladin, and a D&D Barbarian. When WoW launched it was a bit more like say Vengeance, Devotion and uh whatever that healy Paladin subclass is called. I.e. some different spells but the core of the class is the same.



I've played all of WoW except Shadowlands, so I know what you are talking about. I don't entirely agree, but it's not necessarily worth pursuing this line of discussion further. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I noted MtG was the main inspiration for GW1 in another post. It made the design a lot sharper and cleaner than most CRPGs/ARPGs. It's a pity they didn't really stick with that influence into GW2, seemingly trying to come up with more of their own thing with the single-classing and weapon-based abilities.



Part of the problem, much like with MtG and its growing collection of cards, is that the developers found it a nightmare to balance. That's why ANet switched to its single-classing and weapon-based abilities. It has since expanded that with specializations, which change the playstyle and abilities up for professions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> Part of the problem, much like with MtG and its growing collection of cards, is that the developers found it a nightmare to balance. That's why ANet switched to its single-classing and weapon-based abilities. It has since expanded that with specializations, which change the playstyle and abilities up for professions.



Personally I would say that GW2 is massively less-balanced than GW1 (and always has been, all the way to launch), and less innovative, and more importantly has less engaging and massively less fun gameplay than GW1, so I think they made a big mistake there. I don't think it's a mistake a company would make in 2021. Many of the most successful games on the market now are a "nightmare to balance", including virtually all digital TCGs, all MOBAs, and all the big Battle Royale shooters, but they're successful in part because they're walking a balance tightrope that also means they can have extremely engaging and sharp gameplay - which does require a lot of maintenance. It's interesting to think about GW2, which is a 2012 game, but when I played it again last year (2020), it felt a lot more old-fashioned and poorly-designed than GW1 (2005 - though really it only got good in 2006) which I played a bit again in 2018, and even than SL-era WoW (which surprised me - it used to feel more forward-looking than WoW).

I'd love to see a pen and paper RPG which took a really strong inspiration from Magic, without becoming a TCG or LCG itself, just like in terms of ability design.


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'd love to see a pen and paper RPG which took a really strong inspiration from Magic, without becoming a TCG or LCG itself, just like in terms of ability design.



Dare I say it? Sure. Why not? I would honestly consider looking at something like 4e D&D, which also would a be strong candidate for using power cards and "assembling a deck" of useful abilities. There is arguably some conceptual overlap into things like power source and MtG color.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

I would like to see more (probably most) spells scale, not just the damage spells. Most up-cast protective spells would probably have longer durations, and not greater effect; so a L9 Shield spell still gives only +5 AC, but it lasts for 9+ full rounds.

Oh, and a much better index.


----------



## Stalker0

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> I would like to see more (probably most) spells scale, not just the damage spells.



I think this is another way to help smooth out the concentration system a bit, providing options with your scaling.

Example: Bless - Gain an extra creature for every spell level above 1st. _Alternatively_, if cast as a 4th level spell it no longer requires concentration.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

Sithlord said:


> They are basically full casters without the 9th level slot in 5E. That’s is. I think the original poster on the 3/4th caster was making a joke.



No, I was being serious. I think that bards are too powerful as is, but making them half casters would make them too week. A three quarters caster would top out with 7th level spells at L17, just as a half caster gets L5 spells at L17. (The Bards L8 spell Glibness is pretty cool, I would keep it, but make it a L7 spell.)

Three quarter casters would get cantrips, like full casters and unlike half and quarter casters. However at L1 cantrips would be _all_ they had; no L1 slots until L2.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I want to think bigger then just a PHB. I would produce a music CD full of songs that explained basic D&D concepts. Instead of a DM having to explain something ( like skill checks), they could play a snappy song instead.


----------



## Stormonu

MichaelSomething said:


> I want to think bigger then just a PHB. I would produce a music CD full of songs that explained basic D&D concepts. Instead of a DM having to explain something ( like skill checks), they could play a snappy song instead.



"Initiative, Initiative, what's your function?"

"Setting up combats and giving turns."


----------



## ECMO3

Get rid of bards


----------



## Don Durito

ECMO3 said:


> Get rid of bards



Ok.  No need to make a song and dance about it.


----------



## FrogReaver

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> By reading this thread, you are agreeing to an unbreakable NDA. If you admit to knowing this thread exists, I will_ know_ and come to your house and *shave your eyebrows off*.



Does this thread we are in exist?


----------



## Neko Princex

Magic is stripped out of the base classes. I'm tired of Vancian magic.


----------



## Yora

I would cover only level 1 to 15. Everything beyond that is never going to be relevant for 95% of all campaigns anyway. It's actually only noise and not signal.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

FrogReaver said:


> Does this thread we are in exist?



I can neither confirm nor deny that.


----------



## FrogReaver

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I can neither confirm nor deny that.



Maybe it both exists and doesn't exist.


----------



## Oofta

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe it both exists and doesn't exist.



Schrodinger's thread?


----------



## ph0rk

Spell points core. Leave wizards Vancian if need be (and go back to _real_ Vancian) but get rid of spell slots for everyone else. They are clunky and dumb. Ideally, with different recovery mechanics for different classes or categories (divine/nature/charisma/arcane).

Streamline the resource attrition and make it plain as day. Come out and state, clearly, that the system is designed for more than one combat per day, and that a longer rest schedule should be the default in those games. Don't bury it in an optional rule, and don't be vague about resource expenditure and encounters. A social encounter that costs no resources is a trivial encounter and could be considered such when looking at daily budget.

Move from natural language back to _clear_ language - and stop most of the rules interaction confusions before they start. State, specifically that _blackness is not darkness_ or _weapons may not be drawn as part of casting a spell_ if that is the intent - don't leave that many pieces to the hermeneutic interpretations of players and DMs.

More nonmagical options for those that want such, and make them feel good to play. If that means coming out and stating, plainly, that levels 15+ are epic and unbalanced, fine. State it so we can know that it is so.

Cut out sorcerers and replace with psionicists.


----------



## Sithlord

ph0rk said:


> Spell points core. Leave wizards Vancian if need be (and go back to _real_ Vancian) but get rid of spell slots for everyone else. They are clunky and dumb. Ideally, with different recovery mechanics for different classes or categories (divine/nature/charisma/arcane).
> 
> Streamline the resource attrition and make it plain as day. Come out and state, clearly, that the system is designed for more than one combat per day, and that a longer rest schedule should be the default in those games. Don't bury it in an optional rule, and don't be vague about resource expenditure and encounters. A social encounter that costs no resources is a trivial encounter and could be considered such when looking at daily budget.
> 
> Move from natural language back to _clear_ language - and stop most of the rules interaction confusions before they start. State, specifically that _blackness is not darkness_ or _weapons may not be drawn as part of casting a spell_ if that is the intent - don't leave that many pieces to the hermeneutic interpretations of players and DMs.
> 
> More nonmagical options for those that want such, and make them feel good to play. If that means coming out and stating, plainly, that levels 15+ are epic and unbalanced, fine. State it so we can know that it is so.
> 
> Cut out sorcerers and replace with psionicists.



I sort of kinda agree with you. I would like to see different magic systems for the major classes. And I would like to see them very different imho. I love vancian magic for wizards where each spell is crafted daily, but not so much for other classes. I like a wizard class where they need great knowledge about how magic and the world world works to function properly. Not so much for the other classes. Clerics get what their deities decide they get. Sorcerers do what come naturally. Etc.


----------



## ph0rk

Sithlord said:


> I sort of kinda agree with you. I would like to see different magic systems for the major classes. And I would like to see them very different imho. I love vancian magic for wizards where each spell is crafted daily, but not so much for other classes. I like a wizard class where they need great knowledge about how magic and the world world works to function properly. Not so much for the other classes. Clerics get what their deities decide they get. Sorcerers do what come naturally. Etc.



A nice way to integrate classes with negative mechanics (if necessary, and I still think this is possibly not a good idea) is to tie it into recharge - Paladin acting counter to their oath? No divine points restored. Cleric irritating their god? Two more divine points per spell cost.

I think I'd probably also go back to pre-3e multiclassing for casters: Non-overlapping magisteria.


----------



## Steampunkette

ph0rk said:


> A nice way to integrate classes with negative mechanics (if necessary, and I still think this is possibly not a good idea) is to tie it into recharge - Paladin acting counter to their oath? No divine points restored. Cleric irritating their god? Two more divine points per spell cost.
> 
> I think I'd probably also go back to pre-3e multiclassing for casters: Non-overlapping magisteria.



Makes me think of an interesting option for magisteria stacking:

Your Primary (First) class determines your spellcasting type/recovery/cost mechanics. Your second class or whatever others you might have just increase your first class's level for spell purposes and offer new spell options.

So a Warlock/Cleric gets spell slots as a Warlock, recovers them on a short rest, but adds Cleric spells to their options for spells known, and their Cleric levels count as Warlock levels for Pact Magic advancement.

Or whatever mechanics you create for the different classes.


----------



## ph0rk

Steampunkette said:


> Your second class or whatever others you might have just increase your first class's level for spell purposes and offer new spell options.



That could be neat - maybe they swap if the second class outlevels the first, or there is some other consequence, as otherwise there will invariably be one level dip at level 1 shenanigans.

Come to think of it, I think I might place the level dip on the chopping block in one way or another. Most abilities that scale on level or proficiency bonus would be reworked - imagine if Barbarian were created today? It might gain rages per day based on prof bonus. That would not be a good thing.

Class-agnostic stuff would scale by prof bonus (feats, mostly). 

If I were _really_ free I might make feat based versions for most class abilities, and a couple freelancer/abilityless skeleton classes from which to build modern multiclasses, sort of like the points based build options of old. Again, I'd make these core, at least as core as the DMG.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Now I’m going to imagine that D&D has tanked, I got rich and bought wotc, and I’m making the new D&D .  

1. I’d put out a red box starter kit that is basically a mix of 5e and some simple ideas, with a Warrior, Thief, Mage, and a 4th class that mixes magic and martial prowess. It’d be the new D&D Basic. Occasional expansion boxes, and stuff likeDCs and enemy math would be the same between this and D&D.  Basically HeroQuest with more roleplaying prompts.  

2a. Tech allowing, there would be a whole Augmented Tabletop system for playing D&D, using a highly mod-friendly system to make AR maps, minis, terrain, etc. I’m sure this already exists, but it would be all packaged together

2. D&D. The basic mechanics would be the same as 5e, because they just work.  Basic design ethos is bring back the improvisation of the simplest dnd editions, while keeping the “look at my OC I love them they’re dumb” thing that 5e does so well. 

Every class would get a top down review. The old books would be in print, D&D Basic is very OSR meets simplified 5e, no reason to be over-cautious. If it doesn’t sell make playtesters happy as a D&D ill just sell it as a new game.  

*Fighter*- Split into Warrior and Archer. Might also get a Swashbuckler or something, but tbh the light fighter can be a warrior when you see what I’m gonna do to ability scores. Both are very simple with optional complexity. Archer gets a somewhat improv-leaning “trick shot” ability. 

*Rogue* - Becomes the Jack of all trades. Possibly renamed Jack, but I’m sure that would annoy some people. Dirty Fighting rather than Sneak Attack, broad skills, able to pick up tactics from allies, stuff like that. 

*Bard* - Scholar, Warrior-poet, shapeshifter, bringer of curses and blessings, not a ton of Spellcasting but ritual magic is as strong as it gets. 

*Druid* -  eats the cleric, because I don’t like the cleric and don’t think it makes sense as a class. The Druid becomes a combination of the D&D druid and the mythic Druid and the priest who hears the voice of God. A lot of “channel divinity” stuff and rituals, and less direct spellcasting, like all spellcasters. 

*Mystic Warrior* - obv working title. Contains the monk and Paladin, being the Holy or Mystic Warrior. Some elements of priesthood or holy orders, martial excellence, ability to push beyond what others can do physically, etc.  

*Mage - *either focus on a type of magic, a type of ritual tool (Spellcasting focus), or lean into being the magical Jack of all trades. 

*Expert - *Contains artificer and trap finder rogue stuff, as well as ability to “hack” magical effects like a rogue disables devices.

*Assassin - *Here’s your lightly armored lethal combatant. Sneak attack, high AC without heavy armor, heightened crit when hidden or attacking a creature that is charmed paralyzed or poisoned, highly mobile, capable of bursts of extreme general violence but not the ability to keep that up forever like a Warrior. 

Other classes: let playtesting and other designers on the team figure it out.  

*Magic*- just less of it than D&D has ever had. More ritual magic though, and skill-based magic. Only keep iconic and necessary spells, low spell slots, keep cantrips but more utility than combat, just tone down the magic. *Big magic* is the sort of thing you need to gather resources for, do your homework, ask an extra planar being for a solid, or symphony power form a powerful artifact. No one just has 9th level spells just because they’re level 20. 

*Ability Scores *- Less impact on combat directly, but your modifier does give you a pool of d6’s that you can spend to add to rolls related to that score, including the system wide ability to reduce another creatures check as a reaction by spending an Ability Die and making a skill check. 

Add a couple skills, explicitly make the knowledge skills have active uses, but keep descriptions of what you can do fairly open-ended.  

Then I’d let a diverse team loose on it to make it as queer and multicultural as we can.  
Class names could be changed, but the basic ideas would remain if possible.


----------



## DammitVictor

Now... if we're talking about what we'd do with 6e, as _employees of Hasbro_-- still constrained by the need to appeal to as many fans as possible, but not full compatibility-- I could probably get away with a little bit more of what I wanted.

Start here.

*Classes: *I want to make all kinds of radical changes here, but I don't feel like I can. Every class that was in the 5e PHB needs to be in the 6e PHB (even the Sorcerer and Ranger), and that means I can't add much more. I am adding (some version of) the *Mystic*out of pure spite at this point.
*Subclasses:* Each Class has multiple (non-interchangeable) Paths, selected at (probably) 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, and 21st; this includes previous edition options like Kits, Prestige Classes, and Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies as well as most multiclassing.
*Power Sources: *Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psychic. These are broken down at the _individual ability _level, rather than the class level, to allow (for example) Paladins to be Martial and Divine, and for Class Paths to introduce additional power sources to classes like Fighter and Rogue.
*Martial* is a real power source, like 4e Martial by default, but including (optional) supernatural abilities in the core rules.
*Psychic* is _basically_ psionics, but it uses spells and spell slots and _maybe_ does something clever with over- or under-casting mechanics that distinguishes them from arcane/divine/primal.


*Lineages: *I really, _really_ want to go back to Race-as-Class here, but I know the fanbase wouldn't stand for it in the official _Dungeons & Dragons_game. Also... every PHB race from 5e needs to be a PHB lineage in 6e, regardless of how much I might want to remove some of them. This means, aside from the Drow... again, I cannot afford to add many options.
I can _probably_ get away with making half-races into lineage options, so I'm going to try to do this, instead of including them as full discrete lineages.
Every lineage gets X features/options at 1st level, additional Path options, and access to lineage feats/proficiencies. Lineage grows with the character.
Converting subraces and half-races into lineage options hopefully saves me enough space that I can add Orc, Warforged, and Tabaxi as options. I'd rather have Kobold and/or Tortle, but they're too similar to Dragonborn; I'd love to add Goblin, but there just isn't room.

*Backgrounds: *Backgrounds have broader latitude to grant proficiencies in 6e, but otherwise behave identically. They do not grant ASIs, and I definitely _do not include_ a sidebar lecturing the reader that basing ASIs on _socioeconomic class_ is not, in any _conceivable_ fashion, _less offensive _than basing them on magical species who have, at least, the _Thermian Argument_ in their favor. As much as I want to.
*Ability Score Increases: *So if you don't get them from your lineage, or your class, or your background, where do you get your 1st level ASIs from?
You don't. They are not necessary.
You get one +2 or three +1s every 4th level. Maximum score starts at 20 and goes up +1 every four levels.

*Proficiencies and Feats: *These would remain optional, but: proficiencies scale with level, with trained proficiencies scaling faster, up to +1/2 levels. (If proficiency rules aren't in place, these bonuses are applied to lineage/class-related ability checks.) If feats are allowed, they don't compete with ASIs; other than that, this is one of the few things I think 5e got very, very right and I don't want to ruin it.
Characters keep getting Proficiency Slots after 1st level. They _mostly_ don't increase your check bonus (unless you take Expertise) but they expand the scope of what the skill is useful for. Putting more than a couple of slots into a skill starts getting explicitly supernatural by default, unless that is (optionally) restricted.
As noted in my previous post, "skilled" classes get more proficiency slots, and _Fighters are a skilled class_.

*Healing and Hit Dice: *PCs get more than 1 HD/level. Magical healing requires spending Hit Dice. If you're knocked down in combat, you _stay down_ unless/until you can get a short rest. Overnight natural healing (hit points and hit dice) is slower.
*Saving Throws: *I do not know specifically how to fix this, but in TSR D&D you got _better_ at making saving throws as you went up in level and in WotC D&D you get (relatively) worse. I have wanted to fix this for a long time.
*Monster Design: *Basically start from 4e, and adjust to fit into the 6e mechanics.
*Combat: *Reintroduce standard combat maneuvers. Include a _generous_ stunting mechanic for going off script. Bring back the _Bloodied _condition.


----------



## Gelert

Get the index right. 
Remove Dragonborn and Tiefling. 
Improve the art.
Emphasis the main rule is Wheaton's Law.
That's about it


----------



## Alby87

I'm not a big rule expert, but this is how I would offer the 5.5e. One thing should be clear: common people just loves this game, many follow many streaming sessions because they start to know the rules. If you try a way like "A TOTALLY NEW VERSION", you'll probably fail. So, the idea, for me, should be:

1) PHB REVISED
A revised book which superseed the actual PHB.
 - Classes and "races" should be balanced and upgraded on what the WOTC learned on these years, bringing them to level with Xanathar's and Tasha's.

 - Spells and Rules should be updated on the form, no changes at all, only more clarity.

2) ACERERAK'S GUIDE TO MASTERING
A book that's a DMG companion, not a substitute, with more "optional" crunch such as dungeoning and wilderness trips, advanced rest rules, encounter building for less or more adventorous day, summaries with just small description of all the monsters published in MM, VOLO and Mordenkainen. A guide to build encounter for tier 4, with advices on make challenging depending on the party (have fireball prone wizard? Use this! No Rogue? Use that!) And small narrative advice part, a condensed version of Return of Lazy DM book, for example.

People will not feel that they book are useless: people can still play the original PHB if they want, but they know a new PHB is there, and sometimes they should buy it. Without any pressure.
DMs will not feel also their books are useless, they are perfectly compatible, and having a book dedicated to them that just upgrade to 5.5e in a slow way (you can still play 5e with just the new rest system, for example).

There a lot of ways to manage the trasiction to a revision of the game without angering the fan base


----------



## TwoSix

Sithlord said:


> I would like to see odd levels being class features and even levels being subclass features.



I’d probably do subclass at 1st (I think getting subclass right away is important), class feature at 2nd, and ASI/feat at 3rd, then keep that pattern for every level after.
That keeps 5,11 and 17 for important tier defining class features.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TwoSix said:


> I’d probably do subclass at 1st (I think getting subclass right away is important), class feature at 2nd, and ASI/feat at 3rd, then keep that pattern for every level after.
> That keeps 5,11 and 17 for important tier defining class features.



For maximum compatibility* I’d go for adding an optional variant feature to each class that gives many options that broadly speak to the archetypes the class gets. 

I wouldn’t restrict myself to any one design type. Fighters might get soemthing in the order of an optional Stance feature. One makes your attacks magical and deal elemental damage, another is very aggressive themed and increases damage on a crit, another gives an extra skill proficiency, etc.

The balance point would probably be things balanced against a skill proficiency. 

*my goal with a new PHB would be to make it so compatible with the 5e PHB that you can use literally every 5e book without adjustment.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> my goal with a new PHB would be to make it so compatible with the 5e PHB that you can use literally every 5e book without adjustment.



I think that's a worthwhile goal, and for DM tool or Monsters, easily achieved.  However,  to be able to do any really worthwhile (as in, worth the work and hassle of a new Edition) changes, there would have to be at least a minor level of disjuncture in player character options (though perhaps fixable with a conversion guide).  That's why I hit on the idea of "modular compatibility": maybe you couldn't use the Horizon Walker Ranger with a 6E base Ranger, but bringing a 5E Ranger to a 6E game would work in play.


----------



## Tinker-TDC

Parmandur said:


> I think that's a worthwhile goal, and for DM tool or Monsters, easily achieved.  However,  to be able to do any really worthwhile (as in, worth the work and hassle of a new Edition) changes, there would have to be at least a minor level of disjuncture in player character options (though perhaps fixable with a conversion guide).  That's why I hit on the idea of "modular compatibility": maybe you couldn't use the Horizon Walker Ranger with a 6E base Ranger, but bringing a 5E Ranger to a 6E game would work in play.



This seems achievable just by keeping to 5e's Bounded Accuracy range. (Which I am absolutely in favor of.)


----------



## Aldarc

TwoSix said:


> I’d probably do subclass at 1st (I think getting subclass right away is important), class feature at 2nd, and ASI/feat at 3rd, then keep that pattern for every level after.
> That keeps 5,11 and 17 for important tier defining class features.



Are you a fool? This is too obvious!


----------



## Campbell

I would place a lot more emphasis on subclass and not have class chassis decide so much to open up more design space. 

I would also make expertise more widely available so any class could be good at any skill. Skilled archetypes would get more skills at higher depth. Mostly I want to avoid bad feels like Rogues being better at Athletics than Fighters or Barbarians. 

Something also really needs to be done about holes in the saving throw math that get worse as levels go up. One idea would be to make all saves proficient and grant advantage on certain saves as a class feature.


----------



## Greg K

doctorbadwolf said:


> For maximum compatibility* I’d go for adding an optional variant feature to each class that gives many options that broadly speak to the archetypes the class gets.



if not giving subclasses at 1st level to all classes, I would also do class variants at Level 1 similar to Khaalis's Light Fighter Variant.  I would do one variant for the bard to address the issue discussed in Mike Mearl's Happy Hour with the Valour Bard.  I would do a Wilderness Rogue and, maybe, an Academic/Scholar Rogue variant for the Rogue.


----------



## Greg K

If I am in charge of the next PHB, I
1) bring in Steve Kenson to replace current WOTC designers on the PHB and have him design Psychic, Shaman, and Witch classes among other things
2) Replace the Human with something along the lines of Rich Howard's Ultimate Adaptability (from his website and  the Tribality website) and/or WinRar's Humans Redone (from Reddit Unearthed Arcana and GM's Binder). However, i would separate the racial elements (biological elements) from all races from the cutltural elements and make the cultural elements a selection of choices that can apply to any race


----------



## Tinker-TDC

I think the big thing is making every class get at least one new thing every level. This is probably most achievable by making classes level 10 and optionally making subclasses and ASIs go on top of class features. 

just in case gonna make a list here of all the class features that add NEW things (so ignoring the ones that just let you trade things for other things like Cantrip Formulas and Martial Versatility.)

Artificer: 11 class features
Barbarian: 12 class features (+2 Tasha's)
Bard: 9 class features (+1 Tasha's)
Cleric: 4 class features (+2 Tasha's)
Druid: 5 class features (+1 Tasha's)
Fighter: 5 class features (+2 if you include the two bonus ASIs)
Monk: 17 class features (+4 Tasha's)
Paladin: 12 class features (+1 Tasha's)
Ranger: 11 class features (+4 Tasha's)
Rogue: 11 class features (+1 Tasha's) (+1 if you include the bonus ASI)
Sorcerer: 4 class features (+1 Tasha's)
Warlock: 5 class features 
Wizard: 4 class features

Naturally these numbers are misleading as different classes get a different number of subclass features and "Spellcasting" is being treated as one feature whereas in the 5e design scheme it counts as a feature every level you get a new level of spellcasting. Monk is the big standout in this list but it also requires the most to be playable (unarmored defense and ki-empowered strikes are more making up for minuses than plusses in themselves) and has some big ribbons like Timeless Body and Tongue of Sun and Moon. 
So that's my proposal. 10 levels with subclasses and ASIs being in-addition to class features rather than instead of class features and getting to use the same class feature one more time per day not being the only thing you get on a level-up. Opens up room to play without subclasses or allow subclasses to give features on different levels for internal balance purposes. Also makes your highest level spell equal to your level in that class which adds simplicity for new folks.


----------



## Sithlord

Campbell said:


> I would place a lot more emphasis on subclass and not have class chassis decide so much to open up more design space.
> 
> I would also make expertise more widely available so any class could be good at any skill. Skilled archetypes would get more skills at higher depth. Mostly I want to avoid bad feels like Rogues being better at Athletics than Fighters or Barbarians.
> 
> Something also really needs to be done about holes in the saving throw math that get worse as levels go up. One idea would be to make all saves proficient and grant advantage on certain saves as a class feature.



No. I would not make expertise available to other classes. I really think that should be a rogue thing. However, I would lower DC for most checks so that a person without expertise still kicks butt at it. But if they are don’t to keep the DC as high as they currently are then you are probaly correct. I do see an exception, I would do expertise arcana for wizards, religion for clerics, survival for rangers, but very class specific. But that is just my opinion.


----------



## ph0rk

Sithlord said:


> No. I would not make expertise available to other classes. I really think that should be a rogue thing.



Why not give rogues something similar to jack of all trades instead? Expertise is all about breaking bounded accuracy, and either more classes should have access to it or none of them should.


----------



## Sithlord

ph0rk said:


> Why not give rogues something similar to jack of all trades instead? Expertise is all about breaking bounded accuracy, and either more classes should have access to it or none of them should.



Because I’m old and I think the rogue should be untouchable with certain skills like stealth, detecting and finding traps, opening locks, climbing walls, deception, and a few other skills.


----------



## Greg K

Sithlord said:


> Because I’m old and I think the rogue should be untouchable with certain skills like stealth, detecting and finding traps, opening locks, climbing walls, deception, and a few other skills.



Except for stealth, I agree with you (I think Bararians, Druids, Rangers should be able to have expertise in stealth). However, I think there are other skill proficiencies or tool proficiencies that  certain other classes should be able to have expertise.


----------



## Parmandur

Sithlord said:


> Because I’m old and I think the rogue should be untouchable with certain skills like stealth, detecting and finding traps, opening locks, climbing walls, deception, and a few other skills.



Even with the Ranger and certain Feats granting Expertise, the Rogue still has reliable Talent, which is killer.


----------



## Sithlord

Greg K said:


> Except for stealth, I agree with you (I think Bararians, Druids, Rangers should be able to have expertise in stealth). However, I think there are other skill proficiencies or tool proficiencies that  certain other classes should be able to have expertise.



I think they should be skilled in stealth. Which should be badass good. I think expertise should be placing them on a near mystical level of skill.  5E has too many skilled pros failing checks and we get few skills and can’t really get them after first.


----------



## ph0rk

Sithlord said:


> Because I’m old and I think the rogue should be untouchable with certain skills like stealth, detecting and finding traps, opening locks, climbing walls, deception, and a few other skills.



Ok, give them something that covers for poor stats in those areas but doesn’t surpass what proficiency+a 20 in that stat should do; like expertise but not applicable to skills with a high main stat.

Expertise with a high stat breaks bounded accuracy. It was a mistake.


----------



## Parmandur

Sithlord said:


> I think they should be skilled in stealth. Which should be badass good. I think expertise should be placing them on a near mystical level of skill.  5E has too many skilled pros failing checks and we get few skills and can’t really get them after first.



Reliable Talent makes the Rogue near mystical: not being able to fail a DC 25 is astounding.


----------



## Sithlord

Sithlord said:


> I think they should be skilled in stealth. Which should be badass good. I think expertise should be placing them on a near mystical level of skill.





ph0rk said:


> Ok, give them something that covers for poor stats in those areas but doesn’t surpass what proficiency+a 20 in that stat should do; like expertise but not applicable to skills with a high main stat.
> 
> Expertise with a high stat breaks bounded accuracy. It was a mistake.



To each there own. I don’t see it a problem with skills. And it is needed in my opinion.


----------



## ph0rk

Sithlord said:


> To each there own. I don’t see it a problem with skills. And it is needed in my opinion.



The problem is characters with access to expertise can become untouchable in more than just stealth.

Athletics and persuasion, in particular.

The only way to match them is to gain expertise. This is a huge design error.

If used to shore up skills with poor stats, it is less of an issue, but it is not necessarily used in that way.


----------



## Sithlord

ph0rk said:


> The problem is characters with access to expertise can become untouchable in more than just stealth.
> 
> Athletics and persuasion, in particular.
> 
> The only way to match them is to gain expertise. This is a huge design error.



Hasn’t Hurt my game any. Practically made them better. Although I think many thins in Athletics should be strength saves. Ban them if it is destroying your game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I think that's a worthwhile goal, and for DM tool or Monsters, easily achieved.  However,  to be able to do any really worthwhile (as in, worth the work and hassle of a new Edition) changes, there would have to be at least a minor level of disjuncture in player character options (though perhaps fixable with a conversion guide).  That's why I hit on the idea of "modular compatibility": maybe you couldn't use the Horizon Walker Ranger with a 6E base Ranger, but bringing a 5E Ranger to a 6E game would work in play.



Looking at Tasha’s, I have no problem seeing updated versions of all the classes that just work better, without making them incompatible with the original 5e phb or other books.  

For instance, a ranger that gets a Natural Explorer that has Deft Explorer folded in, Favored Enemy that makes Hunters Mark a freebie and adds another spell depending on favored enemy choice, and switches to prepared casting, would work fine with existing subclasses.  

The wording of the bonus spells features would still work, at most needing a general rules in the phb Spellcasting section that notes that if a feature says that you learn a spell and that spell doesn’t count agains your spells known, it also doesn’t count against spells prepared, and vise versa.  

Find a succinct way to say that, and that learning a spell means you can cast it with any spell a lot you have, just to smooth over any other issues.  




Greg K said:


> if not giving subclasses at 1st level to all classes, I would also do class variants at Level 1 similar to Khaalis's Light Fighter Variant.  I would do one variant for the bard to address the issue discussed in Mike Mearl's Happy Hour with the Valour Bard.  I would do a Wilderness Rogue and, maybe, an Academic/Scholar Rogue variant for the Rogue.



Yeah that’s similar to what I’m on about, except I’d just add a feature slot to all classes at level 1, and say, “you gain either 1 skill, tool, weapon, or armor, proficiency of your choice, or a Variant Starting Feature from your class. Maybe weapons could be more than one, but you get the idea.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Looking at Tasha’s, I have no problem seeing updated versions of all the classes that just work better, without making them incompatible with the original 5e phb or other books.
> 
> For instance, a ranger that gets a Natural Explorer that has Deft Explorer folded in, Favored Enemy that makes Hunters Mark a freebie and adds another spell depending on favored enemy choice, and switches to prepared casting, would work fine with existing subclasses.
> 
> The wording of the bonus spells features would still work, at most needing a general rules in the phb Spellcasting section that notes that if a feature says that you learn a spell and that spell doesn’t count agains your spells known, it also doesn’t count against spells prepared, and vise versa.
> 
> Find a succinct way to say that, and that learning a spell means you can cast it with any spell a lot you have, just to smooth over any other issues.



Honestly my biggest concern would have been changing the structure of Subclasses, such as making everyone pick one at Level 1, would introduce compatibility issues, but that might be something that could be worked with successfully.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Honestly my biggest concern would have been changing the structure of Subclasses, such as making everyone pick one at Level 1, would introduce compatibility issues, but that might be something that could be worked with successfully.



Right, me too. My solution is to instead add a feature outside class or background at level 1 that gives a proficiency of the players choice or a feature from thier class, with each class having features like “make you weapon attacks magical and deal an elemental damage type” (for fighters and rogues) and “you gain a fighting style” (Bards), etc.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> Now... if we're talking about what we'd do with 6e, as _employees of Hasbro_-- still constrained by the need to appeal to as many fans as possible, but not full compatibility-- I could probably get away with a little bit more of what I wanted.
> 
> Start here.
> 
> *Classes: *I want to make all kinds of radical changes here, but I don't feel like I can. Every class that was in the 5e PHB needs to be in the 6e PHB (even the Sorcerer and Ranger), and that means I can't add much more. I am adding (some version of) the *Mystic*out of pure spite at this point.
> *Subclasses:* Each Class has multiple (non-interchangeable) Paths, selected at (probably) 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, and 21st; this includes previous edition options like Kits, Prestige Classes, and Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies as well as most multiclassing.
> *Power Sources: *Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psychic. These are broken down at the _individual ability _level, rather than the class level, to allow (for example) Paladins to be Martial and Divine, and for Class Paths to introduce additional power sources to classes like Fighter and Rogue.
> *Martial* is a real power source, like 4e Martial by default, but including (optional) supernatural abilities in the core rules.
> *Psychic* is _basically_ psionics, but it uses spells and spell slots and _maybe_ does something clever with over- or under-casting mechanics that distinguishes them from arcane/divine/primal.
> 
> 
> *Lineages: *I really, _really_ want to go back to Race-as-Class here, but I know the fanbase wouldn't stand for it in the official _Dungeons & Dragons_game. Also... every PHB race from 5e needs to be a PHB lineage in 6e, regardless of how much I might want to remove some of them. This means, aside from the Drow... again, I cannot afford to add many options.
> I can _probably_ get away with making half-races into lineage options, so I'm going to try to do this, instead of including them as full discrete lineages.
> Every lineage gets X features/options at 1st level, additional Path options, and access to lineage feats/proficiencies. Lineage grows with the character.
> Converting subraces and half-races into lineage options hopefully saves me enough space that I can add Orc, Warforged, and Tabaxi as options. I'd rather have Kobold and/or Tortle, but they're too similar to Dragonborn; I'd love to add Goblin, but there just isn't room.
> 
> *Backgrounds: *Backgrounds have broader latitude to grant proficiencies in 6e, but otherwise behave identically. They do not grant ASIs, and I definitely _do not include_ a sidebar lecturing the reader that basing ASIs on _socioeconomic class_ is not, in any _conceivable_ fashion, _less offensive _than basing them on magical species who have, at least, the _Thermian Argument_ in their favor. As much as I want to.
> *Ability Score Increases: *So if you don't get them from your lineage, or your class, or your background, where do you get them from?
> You don't. They are not necessary.
> You get one +2 or three +1s every 4th level. Maximum score starts at 20 and goes up +1 every four levels.
> 
> *Proficiencies and Feats: *These would remain optional, but: proficiencies scale with level, with trained proficiencies scaling faster, up to +1/2 levels. (If proficiency rules aren't in place, these bonuses are applied to lineage/class-related ability checks.) If feats are allowed, they don't compete with ASIs; other than that, this is one of the few things I think 5e got very, very right and I don't want to ruin it.
> Characters keep getting Proficiency Slots after 1st level. They _mostly_ don't increase your check bonus (unless you take Expertise) but they expand the scope of what the skill is useful for. Putting more than a couple of slots into a skill starts getting explicitly supernatural by default, unless that is (optionally) restricted.
> As noted in my previous post, "skilled" classes get more proficiency slots, and _Fighters are a skilled class_.
> 
> *Healing and Hit Dice: *PCs get more than 1 HD/level. Magical healing requires spending Hit Dice. If you're knocked down in combat, you _stay down_ unless/until you can get a short rest. Overnight natural healing (hit points and hit dice) is slower.
> *Saving Throws: *I do not know specifically how to fix this, but in TSR D&D you got _better_ at making saving throws as you went up in level and in WotC D&D you get (relatively) worse. I have wanted to fix this for a long time.
> *Monster Design: *Basically start from 4e, and adjust to fit into the 6e mechanics.
> *Combat: *Reintroduce standard combat maneuvers. Include a _generous_ stunting mechanic for going off script. Bring back the _Bloodied _condition.



I like all of this, but the ASI bit. Don't take away my increases as I level up!


----------



## The Annihilargh

J.W.2.S I'm posting this without looking at the thread, just the post. These are all changes I'd make to the 5E PHB, keeping the rest the same.
D&D 6E changes


----------



## Stalker0

ph0rk said:


> The problem is characters with access to expertise can become untouchable in more than just stealth.
> 
> Athletics and persuasion, in particular.
> 
> The only way to match them is to gain expertise. This is a huge design error.
> 
> If used to shore up skills with poor stats, it is less of an issue, but it is not necessarily used in that way.



I don’t think an extra +4 (which is the highest your going to see in the vast majority of games) breaks anything…and certainly doesn’t make you untouchable.
The +5 skill items are the real culprits for “untouchability”


----------



## ph0rk

Stalker0 said:


> I don’t think an extra +4 (which is the highest your going to see in the vast majority of games) breaks anything…and certainly doesn’t make you untouchable.
> The +5 skill items are the real culprits for “untouchability”



The problem is when someone with access to expertise and a high relevant stat is compared to someone who does not who wishes to be ok at, say, deception.

A clever smooth-talking barbarian might have had a charisma of 12 and proficiency in deception. At level 8, they might have a deception check of +4. A charismatic rogue with expertise might have a +9, and a bard might have a +11.

A bard without expertise may have a check of +8, which is more than enough without making it feel like there is no point in the Barbarian even making a check.

Though, I agree skill items shouldn’t be in the game, or if they are should grant proficiency only.


----------



## Faolyn

Neonchameleon said:


> *Classes:*
> 
> Add the Artificer and Warlord classes to core.



_And _psionicist/mystic/whatever you want to call it. Just to ensure that it is actually different than other spellcasters _and _that they think up how its abilities work in conjunction with magic.


----------



## Faolyn

hopeless said:


> So would hybrid be a good name to replace for half elves, orcs, etc?



Probably, because there could also be the expectation that you can create hybrids that have no human in them at all.


----------



## Faolyn

Steampunkette said:


> So... Half-Caster Bard would suck. But what if Bard and Warlock style Occult spells capped out at "5th Level" but 5th level was closer to 8th/9th level for a Wizard? Or a Cleric doing the same thing with 7th level spells.



Ugh, no. That's 1e/2e design. What it _should _be is that their spells are more thematic to who or what they are. Bards should get bard spells.

IMO, there should either be a bit less overlapping when it comes to spells: more unique spells per class, and more ways that each class can modify their spellcasting to to make it more class-specific. So if some class ability lets you have a spell from a different class, it's actually noticeable.


----------



## Steampunkette

Faolyn said:


> Ugh, no. That's 1e/2e design. What it _should _be is that their spells are more thematic to who or what they are. Bards should get bard spells.
> 
> IMO, there should either be a bit less overlapping when it comes to spells: more unique spells per class, and more ways that each class can modify their spellcasting to to make it more class-specific. So if some class ability lets you have a spell from a different class, it's actually noticeable.



Splitting them out to 5th level cap, but making a Bard's 5th level spell on par with a Wizard's 9th level spell in Power would require writing different spell lists.

Unless you just copy-pasted level 8 and 9 spells over to Bard's 5th level spell list...

But I'd prefer wholly different spells from the Wizard/Cleric/Druid Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists.


----------



## Faolyn

Steampunkette said:


> Splitting them out to 5th level cap, but making a Bard's 5th level spell on par with a Wizard's 9th level spell in Power would require writing different spell lists.



I just don't think that's the best solution here. There would be such a leap of power difference between spells that it would be hard to assign them properly. There's no real reason not to stick with 1-9 but just make sure they're actually bardic in nature.

But yes. While there are definitely _some _spells that could belong on more than one spell list, the majority of spells should be unique to either each class or each magical origin.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Additions:
Warlord class, a wider variety of interesting feats, playable orcs, additional weapon properties (brutal, high crit, precision, stout, defensive), actual rules modules and specifically a Tactical Combat Module.

Changes:
Dragonborn that don't suck, BM maneuvers now have higher-level versions or new choices that unlock at higher BM level, Champion is integrated into the base Fighter mechanics and a better "mostly-passive/simple-to-use" subclass replaces it, and all Fighters get Deeds of Might. The Berserker Barbarian is yeeted from this mortal coil and a better "I'm simple and rage _even harder_" subclass replaces it. Paladin and Ranger do not use spells. Sorcerer and Warlock get moderate rewrites to include more of their playtest version concepts. Rogues get Deeds of Cunning.
The "about the game" fluff text from the Races chapter is completely rewritten to encourage creativity and thinking about why and how different fantasy worlds end up the way they do.

Deletions:
Spells are trimmed a little to keep page count down, favoring removal of certain spells I find unbalancing (can't remember specifics and probably too long to list).

Might be more things, those are the ones that come to mind.


----------



## Steampunkette

Faolyn said:


> I just don't think that's the best solution here. There would be such a leap of power difference between spells that it would be hard to assign them properly. There's no real reason not to stick with 1-9 but just make sure they're actually bardic in nature.
> 
> But yes. While there are definitely _some _spells that could belong on more than one spell list, the majority of spells should be unique to either each class or each magical origin.



The spell-level splitting isn't exactly a solution, it's true. But it's meant to do two things:

1) Create more tangible differences in spellcasting classes. Different spell-grouping identifiers (Divine Invocations of the 1st through 7th Circle compared to Arcane Spells of Levels 1-9 versus Occult Incantations from the 1st to the 5th Order compared to Primal Rites within the 7 Cycles) reinforces the fantasy that different kinds of magic -are- different. Even if they just throw out 8d6 in four different ways, the different levels and the different styles of casting and concept are important.

2) It means that creating new spells means the developers need to think of the groupings the spells will fit into and which they won't, rather than a bucket everyone picks out of. Making an Occult spell means making a spell -specifically- for the Warlock or Bard, rather than just making a spell and saying "How many classes would use this spell?". It's a different design headspace that can push the developer to tailor spells to specific groupings, rather than just making a spell and adding it to the pot.


----------



## ph0rk

One inadvertent result of just sticking with 9 levels of spell casting for most casters is they all have gas tanks of roughly the same size. In a game where resource attrition is both an important part of balance but also buried in the texts and interpreted very differently, this is a net negative.

Bards do all sorts of things - them having fewer overall spells per day would be suitable, especially compared to previous versions. The same goes for Clerics and Druids. The idea that they generally cast as many high level spells as a wizard or sorcerer is strange and not a good reflection of previous editions; if we are to take Crawford at his word on twitter and assume the spell lists are flavor only, if you could use the wizard list on any caster chassis you wished with some reflavoring - why would you play the wizard class?

One advantage of moving to a original-class-casting-slots-only sort of multiclass system is different slot advancement charts for casters. This also then opens up the design room for prepared-slot wizards again.

Spell points for some casters would also make this much more manageable.


----------



## TheSword

… the editor.

I definitely shouldn’t be in charge of a new PHB.


----------



## Faolyn

I think bards, rangers--if they persist in giving rangers spells--and maybe even paladins should be more like the warlocks, in the sense of their magical powers being chosen like invocations are rather than just being spells.


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> I think bards, rangers--if they persist in giving rangers spells--and maybe even paladins should be more like the warlocks, in the sense of their magical powers being chosen like invocations are rather than just being spells.



I like the invocations. I don’t see rangers casting spells like a wizard. It’s more of being in touch with the mystical side of nature. A heightened awareness and bond with nature.


----------



## hopeless

Faolyn said:


> I think bards, rangers--if they persist in giving rangers spells--and maybe even paladins should be more like the warlocks, in the sense of their magical powers being chosen like invocations are rather than just being spells.



Actually that's not a bad idea!
They are more or less swearing a pact to a extra dimensional entity for their abilities anyway!
Nice.


----------



## DammitVictor

Faolyn said:


> I think bards, rangers--if they persist in giving rangers spells--and maybe even paladins should be more like the warlocks, in the sense of their magical powers being chosen like invocations are rather than just being spells.




I will say, yes, that magical powers for all magical classes should be more than just spells. Passive magical abilities, active magical abilities... they should exist.


----------



## The Annihilargh

I decided to change my post to just have a link since the post was really long.
D&D 6E changes
[Edits] :
1. Suggested reducing the level cap for full casters


----------



## Faolyn

The Annihilargh said:


> I decided to change my post to just have a link since the post was really long.
> D&D 6E changes






> Add a side-bar suggesting to make languages geographically dependent rather than based on race.



I'd include suggestions for other options as well, like only having a single language on the world or, languages based who or what created the race to begin with. I'd also include Human as a language, and make Common _nobody's _native language. And I'd possibly introduce levels of fluency (even if it's just broken and fluent--my group had a lot of fun with that when we played using GURPS). 



> Double the Hp progression for all classes, as well as for monsters in the Monster Manuel. This is to make combat last longer and don't end in just 15 seconds.



That seems like it would make fights a slog. Personally, I'd want to see hit points _reduced _all around, more like their 1e versions (I'd be tempted, if I were making 6e, to have people stop getting hp at 9th level or so). Although since you are suggesting doubling hp for everything, PCs and monsters alike, I could easily see a sidebar making the suggestion for doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the hp but keeping relative CRs the same if your table likes long combats.



> if she/he/they/it*



Stick with either they or it all around. Anything else is unwieldy.


----------



## The Annihilargh

Faolyn said:


> Stick with either they or it all around. Anything else is unwieldy.



Got it.


----------



## Malmuria

doctorbadwolf said:


> 1. I’d put out a red box starter kit that is basically a mix of 5e and some simple ideas, with a Warrior, Thief, Mage, and a 4th class that mixes magic and martial prowess. It’d be the new D&D Basic. Occasional expansion boxes, and stuff likeDCs and enemy math would be the same between this and D&D.  Basically HeroQuest with more roleplaying prompts.



I'd love if they took their Young Adventurer's Guides and added basic, 5e-compatible mechanics for levels 1-6.  Get rid of death saves, and this gives me a decent OSR game _and_ something to get my nephew for his birthday.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Malmuria said:


> I'd love if they took their Young Adventurer's Guides and added basic, 5e-compatible mechanics for levels 1-6.  Get rid of death saves, and this gives me a decent OSR game _and_ something to get my nephew for his birthday.



Also see; the new “Survivor” stats in VRGtR, for a similar experience, IMO.


----------



## cbwjm

Here's something I'd do with a new PHB since I'm considering doing it now. Anyone who has ritual casting, either as a class ability or through a feat, is able to add any ritual to their ritual book. The ritual book essentially acts similar to a wizard's spellbook in that any ritual can be cast that is in the book. I'm also thinking of adding in a small monetary cost for ritual components, though that is still being considered. Classes like clerics, druids, and bards add all 1st level ritual spells on their spell list to their ritual book at 1st level. Wizards still have to add them as normal by choosing spells on level up or scribing scrolls. At higher levels, clerics and druids can automatically add any ritual spells to their book when they gain a new spell level as long as they spend the time and money to do so.

The reason I'd do this is that I thought rituals in 4e were a cool addition and I think they should have kept something similar in 5e with more spells being rituals and any with the ability able to learn them all instead of being restricted to a single class.


----------



## teitan

1. I would not do much to change the base game, focusing on maintaining compatibility with 5e books, but reinterpreting how things are defined but a few changes listed below

2. refine the rules from Tasha's and then include the original base races as optional examples or quick build versions.

3. Bring in the most well received sub-classes, one or two for each class and beef up the ranger classes already in there. While designed to be important to the exploration pillar, they suffer in combat. Modify the animal companion rules to make them a wee bit less useless.

4. Introduce a streamlined action economy. Not a complete theft of PF2's three action economy but I would strip out bonus actions and just give everyone 2 actions and a move or the option to double move. This requires a tweak to the spellcasting system so that spells are 1 action with heightened spells costing 2 actions. This would require some thought but the action economy is still kind of complex, I have a cleric player who insisted she had no bonus actions but when we looked at her she did and didn't know what that meant. Just make it 3 actions and run with it. 

5. REDUCE hit points. Go to a 10 level hit point system. They always want to speed up combat with each edition and think it is about the number of actions or dishing out more damage when it's about the bags of hit points. Long battles can make for epic encounters and while 5e has helped with the 5 hour combats, it is still a slow combat system and it's those bundles of hit points. Level 10, cap the hit die. Then give Con +1 or Con +2 per level. Monsters can have those higher hit points based on role, bring back mook rules for the hordes, Smaller hit die for average monsters and bigger for the monsters. Cap them at 10 with a +N based on that role. You want Orcus? 10d12+100 HP, Demogorgon? 10d12+120. Ancient Red 10d10 + 50. Goblins? Mooks, 0 hp, one hit eliminates them. 

6. Alignment... have it as an optional rule. I like it, I have my own way of interpreting it that is more in line with old school approaches such as Moorcock. Law vs Chaos is a cosmic struggle and Good vs Evil is a personal moral choice. The only part of Alignment that represents an Align...ment is Law vs Chaos. Keep it optional and have side bars on how the struggle of Law vs Chaos could play out in a setting in the campaign books. Theros? No need for alignment. Forgotten Realms? optional but Dragonlance and Greyhawk? Alignment has a place in those settings. Greyhawk is at its core more about Law vs Chaos with its roots in Moorcock, early D&D. Mordenkainen & the Circle of 8 are very much modeled on this sort of cosmic conflict. Meanwhile Dragonlance is very much of the Moral scale, good vs evil. Similar concepts but representing very different styles of conflict and story. Let DM's have it as a tool. It doesn't need to be in the MM. We know what is supposed to be evil and what isn't. Lolth worshippers are evil but they are a powerful sect in aspects of Drow society, influencing their culture but not individuals. Gruumsh is evil but some of his followers are not. Orcs are portrayed more like Vikings, hordes of raiders as a way of life but not all are evil or villainous. Some have stepped away from the evil or just don't see it or live in that religion because they were raised in it. 

7. Eliminate half races as... half races. Have them "breed true" meaning be a race.

8. Move optional rules, like Feats, mini based combat options and the like to the new DMG book. Keep the core simple, moving the optional rules to their own book will eliminate some of the arguments etc we see by making what is the "core" of the game 100% clear. To the savvy in 5e we know that there is the "Basic" PDF that is just the CORE game but people coming in with the 5e books directly have expectations and don't realize things like Feats are options and not CORE to the game like they were in 3.x-4e. Just move it over. It doesn't do anything to compatibility to do that. AL isn't the end all be all. Move some of the rules of the DMG over to the PHB: magic items, encounter building etc. 

9. work out the three tiers of play better and clearer or abandon that model as a way of talking about things altogether. There was a lot of conversation around the three tiers when they were testing 5e and then they wound up being very... minor outside of a few class options that were clearly designed when the different tiers were a more prominent element in the playtest phase. They've become an unwritten aspect of the game (PF2 handles it a lot better) rather than being actual modes of play clearly delineated. 

9. The new DMG would be the rules module options. Throw in the expanded combat rules for minis, the monster creation rules, vehicle rules, flying rules, seafaring rules. Throw in some NPC examples, rules for making subclasses and the like.

10. MM... as is but a section of Demon Lords, Archdevils, also important NPCs from D&D history. Vecna, Acererak, all the good villains and a section of organizations.


----------



## Aldarc

Faolyn said:


> I think bards, rangers--if they persist in giving rangers spells--and maybe even paladins should be more like the warlocks, in the sense of their magical powers being chosen like invocations are rather than just being spells.



This is kind of what PF2 does with paladins and rangers, who are both "spell-less" in terms of a proper spell progression but gain limited use Focus spells that are somewhat similar to the spells Warlocks can gain through their invocations.


----------



## Mercurius

I would emphatically state in the intro that there is no one true way to play D&D, no "morally correct" approach to the game, and that each group is encouraged to find what works for them - what brings them enjoyment. If you don't want to include something in your game, don't. D&D is a toolbox that can facilitate a wide variety of play styles and objectives, and that the D&D community is about a shared enjoyment of the game, not the enforcement of any single way or ethos onto others.

The rules would reflect this, with a big umbrella approach: lots of races, classes, etc, that reflect five decades of D&D, with no specific ideology imposed, just a shared enjoyment of the greatest game in the world. Big umbrella + toolbox = you make and play the game as you want.

Oh, yeah, I would fix the ranger and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## The Green Hermit

teitan said:


> 10. MM... as is but a section of Demon Lords, Archdevils, also important NPCs from D&D history. Vecna, Acererak, all the good villains and a section of organizations.



We really need a better list of what organizations are out there.


----------



## Wallraven

Minigiant said:


> Certain classes can attack after making Dodge or Disengage Action



Rogue can already disengage & attack (in either order) thanks to Cunning Action.


----------



## Yora

With spell slots having changed, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between wizards and sorcerers, so there's no need for a sorcerer class anymore.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also see; the new “Survivor” stats in VRGtR, for a similar experience, IMO.



I DM for kids, among others, and giving them something they perceive as the "baby D&D" is a good way to make many of them leave the table.


----------



## Malmuria

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I DM for kids, among others, and giving them something they perceive as the "baby D&D" is a good way to make many of them leave the table.



It's not so much "baby d&d" but just resolution mechanics that are simple and allow for creativity.  

This is a good article about that: The Real DIY D&Ders - Questing Beast


----------



## Minigiant

Wallraven said:


> Rogue can already disengage & attack (in either order) thanks to Cunning Action.



The idea is that Disengage and Dodge get upgraded like the Attack action.

Attack -> Extra Attack
Dodge -> Extra Dodge
Disengage- Extra Disengage.
Dodge-> Dodge and Attack.
Disengage-Disengage and Attack.
etc


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Malmuria said:


> It's not so much "baby d&d" but just resolution mechanics that are simple and allow for creativity.
> 
> This is a good article about that: The Real DIY D&Ders - Questing Beast



I understand the concept. But I also DM for kids. Many of them will view it as baby D&D.

And since many of the folks on ENWorld learned D&D as kids, I'm skeptical that a simplified version is needed for them. I've personally taught kids as young as seven to play.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I DM for kids, among others, and giving them something they perceive as the "baby D&D" is a good way to make many of them leave the table.



It’s more D&D Hard Mode, tbh. It’s all about how you present it.


----------



## Hakdov

One thing that I would love to see changed and would probably have very little push back from anyone - fix the damn economy!  The gold based economy is not only seriously unrealistic (not only in history, but also in most fiction), it's also dumb in a gaming sense.  Copper and silver are pretty much useless.  Also, players have little need for money to buy non-magical items.  

In most other rpgs, you will start with the cheapest equipment and have to save up to afford things like plate armor.  In D&D, you start off with good equipment and can afford the best equipment after 1 or 2 adventures.  I think they have a lot of room to improve how this works.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Hakdov said:


> One thing that I would love to see changed and would probably have very little push back from anyone - fix the damn economy!  The gold based economy is not only seriously unrealistic (not only in history, but also in most fiction), it's also dumb in a gaming sense.  Copper and silver are pretty much useless.  Also, players have little need for money to buy non-magical items.
> 
> In most other rpgs, you will start with the cheapest equipment and have to save up to afford things like plate armor.  In D&D, you start off with good equipment and can afford the best equipment after 1 or 2 adventures.  I think they have a lot of room to improve how this works.



What metal they use is less important, IMO, than the fact that every bit of mundane equipment an adventurer is likely to need (barring buying castles or whatever) will have been purchased by level four or so.

Unless you want to bring back purchasing magical items en masse -- which changes the game dramatically -- I think the easiest answer is to dramatically slash how much treasure is given out, but there should also be more things to purchase, even if they're mundane.


----------



## DammitVictor

Bring back the Domain rules. If you think structures are expensive, start pricing infrastructures.

As far as "baby D&D" goes, my experience is that most of the people who WotC is criticized for "pandering" to with softer rules actually go_ gaga _for old-school adversarial meatgrinder play. Most people, again in my experience, respond very strongly and very positively to dramatic tension and the very real possibility of failure.

The most important freedom in D&D is the freedom to lose. Literally everything else follows.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I'd keep the default PHB, and have a new one as a 'PHB 2'.

It would include:


Old races and feats now work like the new post Tasha's options. With options like picking casting stats, and being able to choose to cast the gained spells with spell slots.
Dragonborn replaced with the new versions.
Genasi reprinted but actually made not awful.
Ranger reprinted as the Tasha's ranger.
Sorcerer reprinted, giving all subclasses their own origin spells, and allowing them to use sorcery points to fuel their subclass features.
Base sorcerer now uses spell points, which are merged with sorcery points.
Banneret and battlerager reprinted.
Warlocks amended so that blade pact now uses cha for attacks, replacing hex warrior.
Two completely new classes. The warlord and the swordmage.
Some new feats and spells.


----------



## MichaelSomething

How big should the PHB be? Three hundred pages? Four hundred? More?


----------



## Malmuria

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s more D&D Hard Mode, tbh. It’s all about how you present it.



I think a new edition would be more satisfying to everyone if they had some verson of a basic/advanced split, probably without calling it that.  5e has grown successful in part by catering to a wide variety of playstyles, but becomes 'everyone's second-favorite edition.'  When these discussions of what the next edition should include come up you can almost guess what people's favorite edition is.  Some people really like the simplicity and maybe only play 10-15 times a year and haven't gotten past level 6.  Other people have lots of opinions about the best paladin subclass including UA options, having played all of them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Malmuria said:


> I think a new edition would be more satisfying to everyone if they had some verson of a basic/advanced split, probably without calling it that.  5e has grown successful in part by catering to a wide variety of playstyles, but becomes 'everyone's second-favorite edition.'  When these discussions of what the next edition should include come up you can almost guess what people's favorite edition is.  Some people really like the simplicity and maybe only play 10-15 times a year and haven't gotten past level 6.  Other people have lots of opinions about the best paladin subclass including UA options, having played all of them.



I actually think they could do this right now just by collecting things from across all their books and UAs and such, and putting the full complexity of 5e in DnD, and the sidekicks as classes and other super simple stuff in DnD Lite. Leave out some of the more complex rules, maybe include only some feats that give the flavor of a PHB class to the dirt simple Lite Classes.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I understand the concept. But I also DM for kids. Many of them will view it as baby D&D.
> 
> And since many of the folks on ENWorld learned D&D as kids, I'm skeptical that a simplified version is needed for them. I've personally taught kids as young as seven to play.



Agreed.


----------



## Malmuria

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s more D&D Hard Mode, tbh. It’s all about how you present it.



Yes, which is also why basic dnd is the edition of choice for a lot of the osr.  And a lot of people, kids or not, who being playing dnd begin with starter sets which have limited options.  Simple rules are for all ages!


----------



## Sithlord

MichaelSomething said:


> How big should the PHB be? Three hundred pages? Four hundred? More?



600+ pages not counting art


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Malmuria said:


> Yes, which is also why basic dnd is the edition of choice for a lot of the osr.  And a lot of people, kids or not, who being playing dnd begin with starter sets which have limited options.  Simple rules are for all ages!



Hell yeah.


----------



## haakon1

Malmuria said:


> Yes, which is also why basic dnd is the edition of choice for a lot of the osr.  And a lot of people, kids or not, who being playing dnd begin with starter sets which have limited options.  Simple rules are for all ages!



I agree with the philosophy.  I'd keep something like 3.5e/PF1 with OSR feel and Greyhawk as the core setting as "complicated D&D" and something close to 5e Core Rules and Forgotten Realms as the core setting as the "simplified" version.  But even in "complicated", I'd keep the options fairly limited, to Core Rules+ an Unearthed Arcana and maybe 5 monster books as "everything you need to know".  Everything else could be adventures and additional settings.  Of course, this means a lot fewer rulebooks to sell.

In general, more editions is a negative, not a plus, to me.  5.5e -- cleaned up and simplified 5e, but very much 5e -- would seem better than a truly different 6e.


----------



## hopeless

Sorceror's can select their spells from both arcane AND divine spell lists.
Perhaps the one restriction is they declare which divine class spell list they have access to?
So a Fey Sorceror has access to Wizards and Druid spell lists emulating Gandalf to a degree.
Always felt trying to limit the Sorceror's access to Wizard spells was a mistake when they would work better with access to maybe an arcane class spell list AND a divine spell list and they have to declare WHICH two so you could end up with a sorceror able to cast from a Warlock spell list and say a Paladin?
Just how many variations can you go with if they turned the Sorceror into something truly unique?


----------



## DammitVictor

hopeless said:


> Sorceror's can select their spells from both arcane AND divine spell lists.



Sorcerers should have a short bland spell list for their class. And then a huge (PF1) list of bloodlines that all expand it.


----------



## hopeless

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> Sorcerers should have a short bland spell list for their class. And then a huge (PF1) list of bloodlines that all expand it.



Like Warlocks?


----------



## DammitVictor

hopeless said:


> Like Warlocks?



... yes, but I think they can still be kept distinct enough. We really don't need _three_ arcane casters in the Controller/Striker role, but I don't know how to cut one without creating more problems. Unless Pact and Bloodline were subclass options of a merged class, but that would also make a lot of people unhappy.


----------



## Minigiant

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> ... yes, but I think they can still be kept distinct enough. We really don't need _three_ arcane casters in the Controller/Striker role, but I don't know how to cut one without creating more problems. Unless Pact and Bloodline were subclass options of a merged class, but that would also make a lot of people unhappy.




To me, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard could share subclasses.  The Wizard would not get the expanded spell list that Warlocks and Sorcerers have.

Besides being short rest vs long rest, I think a real distinction of the Sorcerer and Warlock classes would be in their base class spell list. I see the Sorcerer base list be more raw and explosive as their magic isn't guided by formula nor patron. Whereas the Warlock's base list is more precise and personal as the patron likely carved out a role for their warlocks.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

4e warlord and ranger designed for the edition. 

No beastmaster ranger in phb.  that idea needs time to purgolate.

add bloodied as a concept for when things go off.

Kobolds as a core species (species rather then race).

better art for halflings.

I'm taking a page out of angry and having skills reorganized and have never liked the hickily pickly setup of tools.

That's pretty much the only major changes.


----------



## Scott Christian

I change nothing regarding race, classes, feats, backgrounds, spells, and rules.

I add a two page manual in the very front (to the players more than the DM) that instills vehemently that all other splat books are worlds to themselves, and the rules, classes, backgrounds, races, etc. are by DM discretion only. Then, that would be rephrased. Then after that, I would state that splat books might not even be compatible with the PHB. Then, I would rephrase that the PHB is as the writer's intended the game to be. Then, after that, I would restate that splat books are a world unto themselves. Then lastly, I would apologize to anyone and everyone were they to find an error or be upset by anything in the book, but note, in detail, how the author's tried to capture the spirit of the game in one book, that wasn't too confusing or outlandish. 

Last thing I would do is change the damage for battleaxe to 3d4.


----------



## Greg K

Scott Christian said:


> Then, I would rephrase that the PHB is as the writer's intended the game to be.



Except that we know from Mearls that was not the case. He stated that some classes were designed before the class design guidelines were finalized, but were not reworked prior to publishing the PHB. As a result, a few classes do not work as intended when it comes to their interaction with acquiring a subclass and need adjusting.


----------



## Scott Christian

Greg K said:


> Except that we know from Mearls that was not the case. He stated that classes were designed before the class design guidelines were finalized, but were not reworked prior to publishing the PHB. As a result, a few classes do not work as intended when it comes to their interaction with acquiring a subclass and need adjusting.



I don't want to be dismissive, but I am going to be - whatever.

Wah! Wah! We didn't have time to change something, even after more than a year's worth of playtesting. I hope, on a realistic and not hyperbolic level, everyone sees how silly that is.


----------



## ECMO3

Greg K said:


> As a result, a few classes do not work as intended when it comes to their interaction with acquiring a subclass and need adjusting.



Examples?


----------



## ECMO3

Minigiant said:


> The idea is that Disengage and Dodge get upgraded like the Attack action.
> 
> Attack -> Extra Attack
> Dodge -> Extra Dodge
> Disengage- Extra Disengage.
> Dodge-> Dodge and Attack.
> Disengage-Disengage and Attack.
> etc



I don't get this.  If you take disengage action (or cunning action), you are "disengaged" from everyone that turn, you can walk past 10 different enemies and none of them get an AOO.  Similarly if you take dodge, you dodge everyone who attacks you that you can see.


----------



## ECMO3

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What metal they use is less important, IMO, than the fact that every bit of mundane equipment an adventurer is likely to need (barring buying castles or whatever) will have been purchased by level four or so.



I think this is on the DM, either for giving the party too much loot or not making them pay for things like food, rooms, horses, sea travel etc.  None of the official campaigns I have played or DMed provide enough loot to have everything you need by level 4 or even by level 8 for that matter, and I played or Dmed most of them with a small party of 4 players.  Things like holy water and healing potions are constantly in short supply and quite costly to replace.

MINOR SPOILERS BELOW


I have a party in ROFM right now that is level 4 and they have about 300gp between them.  They did acquire some magic items but certainly have a lot more things they would like to buy that they do not have funds for (including dogs and sleds).   I have a group in TOA that is level 5 and they have about the same (although they do have a shield guardian and that seems a bit overpowered for level 5).  I have a 2nd level character I am playing in candlekeep and she only has the 25gp she started with from her background and 20gp worth of silverware that needs to be splt between the party.


----------



## Minigiant

ECMO3 said:


> I don't get this.  If you take disengage action (or cunning action), you are "disengaged" from everyone that turn, you can walk past 10 different enemies and none of them get an AOO.  Similarly if you take dodge, you dodge everyone who attacks you that you can see.





Extra Attack​ 
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

Extra Disengage​ 
Beginning at 5th level, you gain extra movement equal to half your speed whenever you take the Disengage action on your turn.

Extra Dodge​ 
Beginning at 5th level, you gain advantage on Strength and Intelligence saving throws whenever you take the Dodge action on your turn.

Aggressive Disengage​ 
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack one creature or object whenever you take the Disengage action on your turn.

Aggressive Dodge​ 
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once whenever you make an opportunity attack after taking the Dodge action on your turn.



ClassExtra AttackExtra Attack 2Extra Attack 3Extra Attack 4Extra DisengageExtra DodgeAggressive DisengageAggressive DodgeBarbarianXXXFighterXXXXXXXXPaladinXXXRangerXXX


----------



## Greg K

ECMO3 said:


> Examples?



(The following is from a post I made last year in another thread. The examples I included below are the Valor Bard and the Ranger were two classes mentioned. The Valor Bard clearly violated the design goals  while the Ranger issue came up while he was designing a new subclass for his Happy Hour. I would have to go back and see if other specific classes were specifically noted (edit: It appears the videos have been removed from YouTube)).

In various episodes of Mike Mearls's Happy Fun Hour, he revealed WOTC's class guidelines including the level of subclass acquisition. Below I have listed key episodes (for those that want to watch the episodes) and summarized key points. Also, in the Kraken Sorcerer episode, he reveals that some classes break these guidelines, because they were completed before the guidelines were finalized.

Specific points on class on and subclass design from the episodes:

1. Players should be playing the character they want to play at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:58). "We don't want you want you to feel like you have to wait to play the character that you want to play. We want you to feel you are playing the character as early as possible,preferably, 1st level. Then, as you gain levels, you gain more fun stuff to add to that character You are already playing what you want to play and then you just get more toys to play with as your character gets more abilities" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4/18 24:02-24:25).

2. Core class abilities should be something that all character of the class would want. The core class should allow you to portray the character you want "without gaining abilities that you stop using, feel are irrelevant, or go against what your character is" (Happy Fun Hour: Fighter Warlord 3/16/18 11:50).

3. A core class with a subclass at 3rd level means that "the core class identity is much more distinct, much stronger, and impactful on the character" ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18) which was also stated in Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 (18:58). For example, all rogues pretty much use the same armor, similar weapons. They look the same and are good with skills, but the subclass is how they specialize ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18).

In contrast, a core class with a subclass at first level is "defined by the subclass and is driven by it"- a god of time and a god of war are very distinct and do very different things ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18). Having your class grant a subclass at first level means this how you want to present your self from the start (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 18:48)

4. Taking a subclass should not "fundamentally change your character in a seemingly non-sensical way when you gain your subclass" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4 about 23:20), but further augment the concept. For example, when taking your subclass, you should not be changing your equipment (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:22). The Valor Bard breaks this and Mike said that the Bard should have had its subclass at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 22:10).

5. Given the above, core classes that receive their subclass at 3rd level should be "seeded with enough options at first and second level" to avoid an "awkward transformation" (Happy Fun Hour Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 21:16).

When coming up with his Vigilante (a.k.a Urban Ranger) subclass (Happy Hour 9/11/18), Mike ran into the problem that the Ranger class itself had no features or options supporting an urban environment. This meant that a player wanting the subclass would be stuck with wilderness abilities that did not fit the concept before finally acquiring the subclass. This meant that the player did not get to play the character concept from the beginning and would then be stuck with unwanted features. Therefore, it broke 1 and 2 in my accumulated list. It would would lead to an "awkward transformation". To rectify the issue, he created new options and a variant feature.

Happy Fun Hour Episodes Referenced
1/30/18 Kraken Sorcerer
2/16/18 Rogue Acrobat
3/16/18 Fighter Warlord
4/4/18 Thief Acrobat (at the start) and Barbarian Maurader see approx 24:02
9/11/18 Ranger Vigilante (Urban Ranger)


----------



## Scott Christian

Greg K said:


> (The following is from a post I made last year in another thread. The examples I included below are the Valor Bard and the Ranger were two classes mentioned. The Valor Bard clearly violated the design goals  while the Ranger issue came up while he was designing a new subclass for his Happy Hour. I would have to go back and see if other specific classes were specifically noted (edit: It appears the videos have been removed from YouTube)).
> 
> In various episodes of Mike Mearls's Happy Fun Hour, he revealed WOTC's class guidelines including the level of subclass acquisition. Below I have listed key episodes (for those that want to watch the episodes) and summarized key points. Also, in the Kraken Sorcerer episode, he reveals that some classes break these guidelines, because they were completed before the guidelines were finalized.
> 
> Specific points on class on and subclass design from the episodes:
> 
> 1. Players should be playing the character they want to play at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:58). "We don't want you want you to feel like you have to wait to play the character that you want to play. We want you to feel you are playing the character as early as possible,preferably, 1st level. Then, as you gain levels, you gain more fun stuff to add to that character You are already playing what you want to play and then you just get more toys to play with as your character gets more abilities" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4/18 24:02-24:25).
> 
> 2. Core class abilities should be something that all character of the class would want. The core class should allow you to portray the character you want "without gaining abilities that you stop using, feel are irrelevant, or go against what your character is" (Happy Fun Hour: Fighter Warlord 3/16/18 11:50).
> 
> 3. A core class with a subclass at 3rd level means that "the core class identity is much more distinct, much stronger, and impactful on the character" ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18) which was also stated in Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 (18:58). For example, all rogues pretty much use the same armor, similar weapons. They look the same and are good with skills, but the subclass is how they specialize ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18).
> 
> In contrast, a core class with a subclass at first level is "defined by the subclass and is driven by it"- a god of time and a god of war are very distinct and do very different things ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18). Having your class grant a subclass at first level means this how you want to present your self from the start (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 18:48)
> 
> 4. Taking a subclass should not "fundamentally change your character in a seemingly non-sensical way when you gain your subclass" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4 about 23:20), but further augment the concept. For example, when taking your subclass, you should not be changing your equipment (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:22). The Valor Bard breaks this and Mike said that the Bard should have had its subclass at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 22:10).
> 
> 5. Given the above, core classes that receive their subclass at 3rd level should be "seeded with enough options at first and second level" to avoid an "awkward transformation" (Happy Fun Hour Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 21:16).
> 
> When coming up with his Vigilante (a.k.a Urban Ranger) subclass (Happy Hour 9/11/18), Mike ran into the problem that the Ranger class itself had no features or options supporting an urban environment. This meant that a player wanting the subclass would be stuck with wilderness abilities that did not fit the concept before finally acquiring the subclass. This meant that the player did not get to play the character concept from the beginning and would then be stuck with unwanted features. Therefore, it broke 1 and 2 in my accumulated list. It would would lead to an "awkward transformation". To rectify the issue, he created new options and a variant feature.
> 
> Happy Fun Hour Episodes Referenced
> 1/30/18 Kraken Sorcerer
> 2/16/18 Rogue Acrobat
> 3/16/18 Fighter Warlord
> 4/4/18 Thief Acrobat (at the start) and Barbarian Maurader see approx 24:02
> 9/11/18 Ranger Vigilante (Urban Ranger)



There is something that people sometimes do; they look back at a time or event and believe they intended something else, when in fact, their intentions were shown in their actions. A boxer who hauls off and hits a loud mouth at the bar, and then later, decides he was doing it to protect the people around him. A dissertation on the positive effects of (fill in something awful), then later, upon reflection, believe they did it because there were no other paths to follow. A doctor giving poor advice to a patient, and then thinking the advice was because of this other extraneous circumstance of the patient. The point is: the boxer was just annoyed not trying to protect anyone. The doctoral student believed what they wrote at the time, and later reframed the actual writing to only having one path. The doctor gave the advice they thought best at the time without ever considering the extraneous variable they now place in their memory.

None of these people are liars, nor is Mearls. But, the ranger was as they intended. There is more than one writer, and that makes things even more convoluted. They tested the ranger. They thought it was fun. The feedback they received was just as positive as other classes. They wrote it as intended. Only after the fact, did they decide it didn't fit the parameters, and that is especially true after the negative feedback they received about the ranger.

Sorry for the tangent.


----------



## Parmandur

Scott Christian said:


> There is something that people sometimes do; they look back at a time or event and believe they intended something else, when in fact, their intentions were shown in their actions. A boxer who hauls off and hits a loud mouth at the bar, and then later, decides he was doing it to protect the people around him. A dissertation on the positive effects of (fill in something awful), then later, upon reflection, believe they did it because there were no other paths to follow. A doctor giving poor advice to a patient, and then thinking the advice was because of this other extraneous circumstance of the patient. The point is: the boxer was just annoyed not trying to protect anyone. The doctoral student believed what they wrote at the time, and later reframed the actual writing to only having one path. The doctor gave the advice they thought best at the time without ever considering the extraneous variable they now place in their memory.
> 
> None of these people are liars, nor is Mearls. But, the ranger was as they intended. There is more than one writer, and that makes things even more convoluted. They tested the ranger. They thought it was fun. The feedback they received was just as positive as other classes. They wrote it as intended. Only after the fact, did they decide it didn't fit the parameters, and that is especially true after the negative feedback they received about the ranger.
> 
> Sorry for the tangent.



The changes Mearls thought he would want to do weigh the Ranger if he could redo it had as much to do with thematic mistakes as rules design: he realized that to "favored environment" made more sense as the Subclass fulcrum at Level 1, so Forest & Swamp Ranger being Subclasses. That's different from the overall Class structure being off.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Gelert said:


> Get the index right.
> Remove Dragonborn and Tiefling.
> Improve the art.
> Emphasis the main rule is Wheaton's Law.
> That's about it



Isn’t Wheaton’s Law “don’t take it too seriously if you roll three 1s in a row”?


----------



## FrozenNorth

My principal changes would be to classes, specifically wizards, druids, clerics and  sorcerers.

_Druids_ I find the theming of druids to be too narrow: requiring all druids to get wildshape as a major feature leaves less room for non-shapechanging concepts of nature priests.  Instead, wildshape should be a subclass exclusive, with other subclasses that lean into other concepts (for instance, one that goes all in for primal spellcasting or one that goes all in on non-magical terrain effects).

_Clerics_ Greater restrictions on the general cleric spell list (should be restricted to healing and minor buffing), BUT greater flexibility for domain spells.  Basically, Arcana clerics shouldn’t be relying on Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon but should be slinging cool arcane type spells (at a lower level than wizards) and Flame Strike should be a Light cleric exclusive.  Also, while all Clerics should get Channel Divinity, Turn Undead should be limited to Domains who care about undeath (Life and Grave).

_Wizards_ Their niche is their versatility.  Its a good niche, so they don’t need the additional niche of being specialists.  Remove Wizard subclasses.

_Sorcerers_. Broaden their niche to be the focussed spellcasters of the game.  You want to play an enchanter?  There should be a sorcerer for that!  An illusionist? Ditto.  A caster specialized in Earth themed spells?  As well!  To do this, the sorcerer spell list should be the broadest in the game.  I’m ok with slightly increasing their spells known, but their real power should be in the fact that their spell list reflects exactly what the player wants the character to be able to do.


----------



## hopeless

Just a thought, but has anyone suggested the Nature Cleric become the new Druid with the loss of metal armour in return for the ability to wild shape?

No that would be too much especially as that would require the druid spells to be added to the Cleric's reportoire unless made domain spells?


----------



## Vaalingrade

I would have some things provide an actual bonus instead of advantage. And for the people who complain about bonuses, I will include a tutorial for the calculator app for both Android and iPhone.


----------



## Scott Christian

hopeless said:


> Just a thought, but has anyone suggested the Nature Cleric become the new Druid with the loss of metal armour in return for the ability to wild shape?
> 
> No that would be too much especially as that would require the druid spells to be added to the Cleric's reportoire unless made domain spells?



That is actually something I actually would change; letting the druid have one subclass that doesn't make the class always about shapeshifting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

ECMO3 said:


> I think this is on the DM, either for giving the party too much loot or not making them pay for things like food, rooms, horses, sea travel etc.  None of the official campaigns I have played or DMed provide enough loot to have everything you need by level 4 or even by level 8 for that matter, and I played or Dmed most of them with a small party of 4 players.  Things like holy water and healing potions are constantly in short supply and quite costly to replace.



Your post says folks are buying magic items below level 5. I'd submit that you thinking money is tight in 5E is on you. It should not be easy to acquire magical items at low levels by RAW. If you do allow that, you're going to encounter a lot of other issues with the math of the game going kablooey, since this isn't 4E, where everyone is expected to have X number of magical items by Y level. In theory, you can go to level 20 without any magic items in 5E and only be minimally inconvenienced. (Although your players will likely be pissed.)


----------



## Faolyn

hopeless said:


> Sorceror's can select their spells from both arcane AND divine spell lists.
> Perhaps the one restriction is they declare which divine class spell list they have access to?



Option: There is a small core list of sorcerer spells.

Each type of sorcerer has access to a larger list of spells--not just two each of 1st-5th level--that depends on their magical origin.


----------



## MoonSong

Yora said:


> With spell slots having changed, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between wizards and sorcerers, so there's no need for a sorcerer class anymore.



I disagree, maybe to you there isn't a difference, but there is. 

In the end, let's remember that sorcerers have been in the game for 21 years already. That is nearly half of the game's lifespan. Remove the sorcerers and you are telling a lot of players that they aren't welcome anymore.


----------



## Stalker0

Hakdov said:


> One thing that I would love to see changed and would probably have very little push back from anyone - fix the damn economy!  The gold based economy is not only seriously unrealistic (not only in history, but also in most fiction), it's also dumb in a gaming sense.  Copper and silver are pretty much useless.  Also, players have little need for money to buy non-magical items.
> 
> In most other rpgs, you will start with the cheapest equipment and have to save up to afford things like plate armor.  In D&D, you start off with good equipment and can afford the best equipment after 1 or 2 adventures.  I think they have a lot of room to improve how this works.



Only note here, that is not true of plate armor in 5e. If you go by normal treasure horses a fighter won’t have the money for that until like 4th level.


----------



## Greg K

Scott Christian said:


> There is something that people sometimes do; they look back at a time or event and believe they intended something else, when in fact, their intentions were shown in their actions. A boxer who hauls off and hits a loud mouth at the bar, and then later, decides he was doing it to protect the people around him. A dissertation on the positive effects of (fill in something awful), then later, upon reflection, believe they did it because there were no other paths to follow. A doctor giving poor advice to a patient, and then thinking the advice was because of this other extraneous circumstance of the patient. The point is: the boxer was just annoyed not trying to protect anyone. The doctoral student believed what they wrote at the time, and later reframed the actual writing to only having one path. The doctor gave the advice they thought best at the time without ever considering the extraneous variable they now place in their memory.
> 
> None of these people are liars, nor is Mearls. But, the ranger was as they intended. There is more than one writer, and that makes things even more convoluted. They tested the ranger. They thought it was fun. The feedback they received was just as positive as other classes. They wrote it as intended. Only after the fact, did they decide it didn't fit the parameters, and that is especially true after the negative feedback they received about the ranger.
> 
> Sorry for the tangent.



Scott, I will post a reply later.  I have been working on a response, but post-COVID  issues create some difficulty for me when focusing upon and typing longer and indepth responses. (which is why my prior reply to ECMO3 (?)  was, primarily,  copied and pasted from a prior post I made last year).


----------



## Greg K

hopeless said:


> Just a thought, but has anyone suggested the Nature Cleric become the new Druid with the loss of metal armour in return for the ability to wild shape?



Since AD&D 2e, when I run D&D, I replace the druid with the Nature Cleric (no or light armor) and classes for both the Shaman, and Witch.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Greg K said:


> Since AD&D 2e, when I run D&D, I replace the druid with the Nature Cleric (no or light armor) and classes for both the Shaman, and Witch.



I've rationalized nature clerics as the coming of a new religious paradigm pushing out the "old ways" of druidism, but it's been an awkward fit having both in the system all these years, for sure.


----------



## Greg K

FrozenNorth said:


> My principal changes would be to classes, specifically wizards, druids, clerics and  sorcerers.
> 
> _Druids_ I find the theming of druids to be too narrow: requiring all druids to get wildshape as a major feature leaves less room for non-shapechanging concepts of nature priests.  Instead, wildshape should be a subclass exclusive, with other subclasses that lean into other concepts (for instance, one that goes all in for primal spellcasting or one that goes all in on non-magical terrain effects).



Although I, generally, do not use the druid in my games (it is replaced by the Nature Cleric and classes for the Shaman and Witch), I would like to see something similar.


FrozenNorth said:


> _Clerics_ Greater restrictions on the general cleric spell list (should be restricted to healing and minor buffing), BUT greater flexibility for domain spells.  Basically, Arcana clerics shouldn’t be relying on Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon but should be slinging cool arcane type spells (at a lower level than wizards) and Flame Strike should be a Light cleric exclusive.  Also, while all Clerics should get Channel Divinity, Turn Undead should be limited to Domains who care about undeath (Life and Grave).



I agree that the general cleric spell list should be more more restricted.  Personally, I would not want to see healing on the general cleric list. I would want to see spells like augury, bless, bestow curse, remove curse, break enchanmtent, and planar ally.  I also agree that turn undead should be reserved for domains like Life and Grave.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> ... yes, but I think they can still be kept distinct enough. We really don't need _three_ arcane casters in the Controller/Striker role, but I don't know how to cut one without creating more problems. Unless Pact and Bloodline were subclass options of a merged class, but that would also make a lot of people unhappy.



My outlook goes in the opposite direction. I think too many martial archetypes are shoved into fighter and rogue, and the game could use some more room to breath by reorganizing them into 3-4 classes.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrozenNorth said:


> _Druids_ I find the theming of druids to be too narrow: requiring all druids to get wildshape as a major feature leaves less room for non-shapechanging concepts of nature priests. Instead, wildshape should be a subclass exclusive, with other subclasses that lean into other concepts (for instance, one that goes all in for primal spellcasting or one that goes all in on non-magical terrain effects).



I find this idea much more limiting than just letting Wild Shape be more broad in scope, as we have seen in recent Druid subclasses. Wild Shape should be a bigger part of the class, should eat some classic spells like Plant Growth, and should have unique uses in most subclasses, but the base class should have at least 3 uses right out the gate.


----------



## ECMO3

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Your post says folks are buying magic items below level 5. I'd submit that you thinking money is tight in 5E is on you. It should not be easy to acquire magical items at low levels by RAW. If you do allow that, you're going to encounter a lot of other issues with the math of the game going kablooey, since this isn't 4E, where everyone is expected to have X number of magical items by Y level. In theory, you can go to level 20 without any magic items in 5E and only be minimally inconvenienced. (Although your players will likely be pissed.)



No we are not buying magic items, you misunderstood my post.  They have magic items, either looted or given as payment.  None of the examples I gave have any purchased magic beyond potions of healing and holy water.

SPOILERS BELOW

In ROFM my party acquired magic items from some enemies we killed and got another from a guy who gave us one in payment.  I think at level 4 we have 3 magic weapons, a magic ring and a driftglobe between the 4 of us (plus some potions of healing).  Our fighter and Paladin are still walking around in the chainmail they started with.

In TOA we got a few magic sling bullets we fund buried in a hidden area in a location (note none of us actually uses a sling) and we got a shield gaurdian amulet from a Goblin tribe and then activated their shield guardian they were worshiping and took it with us.   That shield guardian is overpowered I admit, but blame the DM (or the adventure) and the sling bullets we found are the only other magic we have at level 5.

Frankley I don't how much of what we got is WOTC official material and how much is the DM.  What I do know is the games I have played and those I have DMed do not give out gold enough to have everything you need at 4th level.  The ones I have DMed in 5E are all published adventures and I did not change the loot at all and the characters had at most a few hundred gold each at 4th level.

In any case we did not buy magic items, sorry if that was not clear on my original post.


----------



## DammitVictor

doctorbadwolf said:


> My outlook goes in the opposite direction. I think too many martial archetypes are shoved into fighter and rogue, and the game could use some more room to breath by reorganizing them into 3-4 classes.




I can agree with this. I'm following a similar route with *Shroompunk*, which combines the Martial and Psionic power sources and reorganizes the Martial/Psionic classes as: Knight, Slayer, Brawler, Gunslinger, Bender, and Psychic. The first four are (equivalently) +1 BAB half-casters with weapon mastery, the latter two are 3/4 BAB medium casters; all of them have or can have Monk features. Knights and Slayers have "subclass" options that dip into other power sources for the equivalents of Paladins, Blackguards, Rangers, Avengers and Assassins.

Then the other power sources have their own classes:

*Draconic: *Shaman and Sorcerer
*Celestial: *Oracle and Marshal
*Infernal: *Warlock and Witch
*Aberrant: *Protean and Druid


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> I can agree with this. I'm following a similar route with *Shroompunk*, which combines the Martial and Psionic power sources and reorganizes the Martial/Psionic classes as: Knight, Slayer, Brawler, Gunslinger, Bender, and Psychic. The first four are (equivalently) +1 BAB half-casters with weapon mastery, the latter two are 3/4 BAB medium casters; all of them have or can have Monk features. Knights and Slayers have "subclass" options that dip into other power sources for the equivalents of Paladins, Blackguards, Rangers, Avengers and Assassins.
> 
> Then the other power sources have their own classes:
> 
> *Draconic: *Shaman and Sorcerer
> *Celestial: *Oracle and Marshal
> *Infernal: *Warlock and Witch
> *Aberrant: *Protean and Druid



Very interesting!  

I’ve been working on several classes for a setting book I’ll hopefully put out someday, and I’ve made an Archer class, and I’m considering making the other martial classes the Warrior, Blade/Assassin, Thief/Expert, and Captain. Ive also already built most of the Captain and Assassin/Blade.  

The Captain has an aura called their Presence, and a pool of Mettle points, along with a Gambit Die, and a handful of Gambits that do different manuevers.  

The Assassin is currently purely focused on being an Assassin, but I may rework it to include the lightly armored, fast, light weapon focused, fighter. It currently has a Shroud that is basically a level-scaling smite they can do a scaling number of times per day, and special moves they can do as an attack, bonus action, or as a reaction when they drop someone, that make them mobile and deadly. Oh, and a feature called Lethal where if they drop a creature to HP equal to their level or lower, the creature drops to 0 instead. This eventually scales to level+Int+proficiency.  

The Archer includes a divine archer, a mounted/mobile shot-on-the-run archer, a trickshot (one handed weapons, fast attacks, basically a gunslinger or knife thrower), and a stealthy woodsy sniper. They have Focus Dice, and can add them to damage or burn them to do trick shots.  

Then I’m considering taking the Swordmage and Monk and smooshing them together into an Esoteric/Mystical warrior class, let it choose between Wis and Int for AC buff, or use armor, and basically lean into the Jedi vibe, and mix Eastern and Western influences.  

On the magic side, I’ve also built a Binder, and have some variant rules and additional infusions for the artificer.


----------



## Helldritch

Ok... the old grognard in me will show...
1) Races. As they are now but remove dark vision from all of them save elves, gnomes and half orc.  Put auto disadvantage on perception check without light.
2) Classes.
Barbs, clerics, druids and sorcerers stay as they are.
Paladin and rangers are now fighter subclasses but built on the eldritch knight build. Paladins, Eldritch knight and Rangers have their own spell lists based on cleric, wizard and druids respectively.
Fighter base is now the battle master. All other fighter subclasses are now working from that base. All subclasses now gain two more skills to better reflect their focus.
Rogues are all thieves at the base. Expertise only gives +2 in the chosen skill(s). At low level, double proficiency is good, at mid to high it is unbalanced.
Monk needs a reworking. But adding a bit more Ki should be enough. (this is what we did).
The artificer is now part of the PHB.
The warlock is fine as is.
Mechanics
Concentration is great but needs a but more reliability. What we did was to allow a concentrating caster to reactivate the effect of a spell when an enemy is successful in saving to end an effect. Ex:" A cleric casts hold person and affects an evil warlord on turn one. The warlord fails his save but makes a successful save on turn 3. The caster has the option to use a bonus action to reactivate the spell on the warlord on his turn." After two successful save in a row, an enemy is free from the spell for good. This gives a bit more whoomph to concentration and adds a mini battle of will between the caster and his target(s). A fun thing to RP.
HP
Everyone stop receiving HD at level 10. They only gaining con bonus (min of 1) for each levels. Feats that adds hp/level stop working at 11th level. This speed up combat by a good margin.

Poisons now have a duration and deal damage over time. Adding more poison simply add to the duration. A save one round simply means no or half damage for that round.

Cantrip damage increase also apply to spells cast with a spell slot. This keep these spell relevant throughout the game. Do a cast a 3d10 fire bolt or 5d4 +5 magic missile? Or do I keep my first level slots for shield? This slight damage boost is not significant enough to unbalance the game but do give some nice puzzling choices to casters...

Right off the bat there would be more like better stealth rules and so on. But this would be a first draft.


----------



## Remathilis

MoonSong said:


> I disagree, maybe to you there isn't a difference, but there is.
> 
> In the end, let's remember that sorcerers have been in the game for 21 years already. That is nearly half of the game's lifespan. Remove the sorcerers and you are telling a lot of players that they aren't welcome anymore.



Half the suggestions in this thread have no problem telling 35+ year old classes that have been there since OD&D to hit the bricks.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Remathilis said:


> Half the suggestions in this thread have no problem telling 35+ year old classes that have been there since OD&D to hit the bricks.



tradition is not itself a reason for something to be good thus being willing to burn anything is not wrong.


----------



## Remathilis

Mind of tempest said:


> tradition is not itself a reason for something to be good thus being willing to burn anything is not wrong.



.It's funny what people will burn though. There are calls to remove druids or dragonborn, but I'm not seeing calls to remove the Tolkien races (elf/dwarf/halfling) from the PHB, or people suggesting we move away from the d20 as the primary resolution die.


----------



## The Annihilargh

I know that the thread didn't explicitly acknowledge this, but what if we a Basic and an Advanced version for the new PHB?
Both versions would have super-concise rules so everyone is clear on what may happen (still subject to DM judgement/discretion),
The Basic version would have slightly simpler rules for those who are D&D-curious,
And the Advanced version could have more intricate and (maybe) creativity-rewarding mechanics.


----------



## Parmandur

The Annihilargh said:


> I know that the thread didn't explicitly acknowledge this, but what if we a Basic and an Advanced version for the new PHB?
> Both versions would have super-concise rules so everyone is clear on what may happen (still subject to DM judgement/discretion),
> The Basic version would have slightly simpler rules for those who are D&D-curious,
> And the Advanced version could have more intricate and (maybe) creativity-rewarding mechanics.



We already have that for 5E, the Basic rules have been our for 7 years. WotC were going to reuse "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the Core books, but WotC marketing research determined that this confused people and would be counterproductive.


----------



## The Annihilargh

Parmandur said:


> We already have that for 5E, the Basic rules have been our for 7 years. WotC were going to reuse "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the Core books, but WotC marketing research determined that this confused people and would be counterproductive.



Wait, we do? I never saw anything like that
And—genuinely curious—how would it be counterproductive?


----------



## Parmandur

The Annihilargh said:


> Wait, we do? I never saw anything like that
> And—genuinely curious—how would it be counterproductive?



Counterproductive in the only way that matters to WotC, impacting sales. Creates brand confusion, introduces analysis paralysis,  that sort of thing. Basic D&D is here:









						What is D&D | Dungeons & Dragons
					

New to Dungeons & Dragons? Find out what makes D&D the world's greatest roleplaying game.




					dnd.wizards.com


----------



## The Annihilargh

Ah, alright.


----------



## Remathilis

The Annihilargh said:


> Wait, we do? I never saw anything like that
> And—genuinely curious—how would it be counterproductive?



@Parmandur already covered it, but I think it's worth a little more discussion.

The Basic book (which is the common four races, the core four classes + one sub each, a few backgrounds and enough monsters to run simple modules) was more-or-less a "free-to-play" version of the game. It's not that much less complicated than what the PHB offers, save for a lot less choices and no feats/multi-classing. 

When people speak of wanting a Basic/Advanced system similar to the 80's D&D/AD&D split, they effectively asking for two versions of D&D to be made; one that doesn't have all the bells and whistles and one that that has deep customization and rules support. TIMHO, that would be the worst possible setup for WotC as they would either focus support on the Basic version (and ignoring the advanced options) or towards the Advanced one (and thus be incompatible with the basic one). So, if the advanced system uses tactical combat rules but modules are written with simpler "I attack" style rules, the tactical rules are going to feel superfluous and needlessly complex or worse, break what balance the module was trying to accomplish.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Remathilis said:


> .It's funny what people will burn though. There are calls to remove druids or dragonborn, but I'm not seeing calls to remove the Tolkien races (elf/dwarf/halfling) from the PHB, or people suggesting we move away from the d20 as the primary resolution die.



I see no reason to not be willing to consider other options, if it is 50/50 then no need to really change but even d20 could be changed.


----------



## Oofta

Mind of tempest said:


> I see no reason to not be willing to consider other options, if it is 50/50 then no need to really change but even d20 could be changed.



You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E.  At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.


----------



## Malmuria

Remathilis said:


> @Parmandur already covered it, but I think it's worth a little more discussion.
> 
> The Basic book (which is the common four races, the core four classes + one sub each, a few backgrounds and enough monsters to run simple modules) was more-or-less a "free-to-play" version of the game. It's not that much less complicated than what the PHB offers, save for a lot less choices and no feats/multi-classing.
> 
> When people speak of wanting a Basic/Advanced system similar to the 80's D&D/AD&D split, they effectively asking for two versions of D&D to be made; one that doesn't have all the bells and whistles and one that that has deep customization and rules support. TIMHO, that would be the worst possible setup for WotC as they would either focus support on the Basic version (and ignoring the advanced options) or towards the Advanced one (and thus be incompatible with the basic one). So, if the advanced system uses tactical combat rules but modules are written with simpler "I attack" style rules, the tactical rules are going to feel superfluous and needlessly complex or worse, break what balance the module was trying to accomplish.



I feel like that they've ended up at a middle ground that is functional for both styles of play but not ideal for either.  I'd bet there are a lot of tables where a lot of the special abilities and such get written down but never get used, and other tables that find 5e does not have enough customization, tactical options, or support for higher levels.  I have players that like playing but are just not interested in learning how the game works, leading to the dm constantly being in a teaching role, which adds to cognitive load.

As stated upthread, I think this could be addressed by using levels and optional rules to gate off complexity.  I suppose Tasha's is an example of this, but it takes the approach of introducing more complexity starting at level 1, whereas people who want complexity probably want tier 3 and tier 4 levels of character power.


----------



## Malmuria

Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries?  Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype.  Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor.  I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class _is_ your background to a large extent.

It would help here if the classes were very distinct.


----------



## Scott Christian

Malmuria said:


> Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries?  Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype.  Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor.  I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class _is_ your background to a large extent.
> 
> It would help here if the classes were very distinct.



There would be sooooooooo much backlash.!
But to be honest, I would probably like it. I am a fan of set menus at restaurants too, so...


----------



## Minigiant

Malmuria said:


> Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries?  Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype.  Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor.  I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class _is_ your background to a large extent.
> 
> It would help here if the classes were very distinct.




D&D has been at a crossroads on this for a while. Races have been becoming rubberforehead humans for awhile with races just being stat adjustments. Only 4e really pushed races having heavier mechanical effects and it was barely.

For 6e, to be the best way to do races/ancestry is to have 2 versions of them: One rubberforehead version and one extreme monster/fantasy version.

The base elf would get +2 to any score, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, and a elf subclass.
The high fantasy version would get +4  to Dexterity, -2 to Constitution, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, aging immunity, cold-iron vulnerability, diplomacy disadvantage, and a elf subclass.


----------



## Shardstone

Oofta said:


> You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E.  At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.



I'm glad this is a thread about what we would change then to meet our tastes, and not us trying to be WotC.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E.  At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.



that also has to be factored into a new edition so stats, class, races and dice are certain at least as well as something 4e failed to do but has never been quantified too me.


----------



## MoonSong

Minigiant said:


> D&D has been at a crossroads on this for a while. Races have been becoming rubberforehead humans for awhile with races just being stat adjustments. Only 4e really pushed races having heavier mechanical effects and it was barely.
> 
> For 6e, to be the best way to do races/ancestry is to have 2 versions of them: One rubberforehead version and one extreme monster/fantasy version.
> 
> The base elf would get +2 to any score, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, and a elf subclass.
> The high fantasy version would get +4  to Dexterity, -2 to Constitution, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, aging immunity, cold-iron vulnerability, diplomacy disadvantage, and a elf subclass.



I would remove all ASIs from race. Only leaving adjustments to be used exclusively when rolling. And these adjustments are only raise one physical stat, lower another physical stat. But if it is pointbuy/array, we don't need no ASIs.


----------



## DammitVictor

Honestly, I've come to accept that I've lost the fight for race-as-class but the more I see the direction D&D is going with races, the more committed I am to anything I'd call _My D&D_ either being race-as-class or strictly humans only.


----------



## Remathilis

Shardstone said:


> I'm glad this is a thread about what we would change then to meet our tastes, and not us trying to be WotC.



Well, except it really isn't...


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> So, WotC finally comes to their senses and asks *you* to be in charge of the new PHB, to go on sale in [REDACTED]. The new PHB should be compatible with the other non-PHB 5E books, but otherwise, you're free to go nuts.



They key factor here is "compatible with other non-PHB 5e books", not "you're free to go nuts". So, this really isn't the thread for people to decide druid isn't a class, it's the thread on how to fix the 5e druid. So, all these hot takes of getting rid of spell slots, turning everything that isn't the fighter and/or the wizard into a subclass, or buy Paizo and making Golarion the default D&D world is a little beyond the scope of this discussion.

Not that anyone really paid attention to that, btw. So If your secret plan is have all 5e PHBs spontaneously combust and be replaced with the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia, that's no more off topic than if you want to argue that you would eliminate subraces and make racial features more modular.


----------



## Malmuria

The thing I like about race-as-class is mechanical simplicity, especially when doing character creation with new players.  I don't like how in 5e you get skill proficiencies from possibly three sources (race, class, background), and some might overlap.  I find that ribbon abilities (gnome tinker, stonecunning) are to niche to be useful, and saving throw bonuses to specific kinds of spells or damage easy to forget.  A lot of what's in the races is there just because it was there in 1e and is part of the heritage, except most races get darkvision because you're really playing a 1e style game where vision/light matters. This is before we get to the incoherent worldbuilding, the rapid expansion of races,  the fact that neither the implied or default setting (FR) tell DMs how all these humanoids fit together in a cohesive way, and of course the issues of essentialism.  I'd rather races/ancestries and cultures be tied to particular settings than part of the kitchen sink.


----------



## Malmuria

Remathilis said:


> Well, except it really isn't...
> 
> They key factor here is "compatible with other non-PHB 5e books", not "you're free to go nuts". So, this really isn't the thread for people to decide druid isn't a class, it's the thread on how to fix the 5e druid. So, all these hot takes of getting rid of spell slots, turning everything that isn't the fighter and/or the wizard into a subclass, or buy Paizo and making Golarion the default D&D world is a little beyond the scope of this discussion.



You can do all of those things, except maybe the fighter/wizard thing, and they would still be compatible with 5e mechanically.  You could run a 5e game that doesn't have any druids.  There are rules for spell points in the dmg.  Golarion would be as good as FR as the default setting.  They probably won't do those things because it wouldn't "feel" like dnd, but it would all be compatible.  



Remathilis said:


> Not that anyone really paid attention to that, btw. So If your secret plan is have all 5e PHBs spontaneously combust and be replaced with the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia, that's no more off topic than if you want to argue that you would eliminate subraces and make racial features more modular.



Anyone who is coming up with a revised or new edition of the game (and not just another "of everything" book) would engage in the creative exercise of taking it apart and putting it back together again.  By which I mean, seeing what parts could be taken out or added before it was truly not compatible with the current edition.


----------



## Faolyn

Ugh, I hate, hate, _hate_ race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter _maybe _and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.

Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.


----------



## Malmuria

Faolyn said:


> Ugh, I hate, hate, _hate_ race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter _maybe _and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.
> 
> Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.



I agree, but the way I look at it is not that the whole race is the same, but the kind of elf or dwarf that is available for play is limited to a single class.  That being said, the version that I'd like to see would let you play any race you can imagine, but with no or limited mechanical effect


----------



## Faolyn

Malmuria said:


> I agree, but the way I look at it is not that the whole race is the same, but the kind of elf or dwarf that is available for play is limited to a single class.  That being said, the version that I'd like to see would let you play any race you can imagine, but with no or limited mechanical effect



Still, it makes all PC whatevers the same, with little opportunity for customization.

Maybe it's just because I nearly always play something new when I make a character.


----------



## Minigiant

MoonSong said:


> I would remove all ASIs from race. Only leaving adjustments to be used exclusively when rolling. And these adjustments are only raise one physical stat, lower another physical stat. But if it is pointbuy/array, we don't need no ASIs.



That's close to how D&D is going. Players get to put a +2 and +1 wherever they want.

I'd just have a special rule for fantastic races where you get double the bonuses but the setting chooses where they go and you get extra pros and cons.


----------



## Minigiant

Malmuria said:


> The thing I like about race-as-class is mechanical simplicity, especially when doing character creation with new players.  I don't like how in 5e you get skill proficiencies from possibly three sources (race, class, background), and some might overlap.  I find that ribbon abilities (gnome tinker, stonecunning) are to niche to be useful, and saving throw bonuses to specific kinds of spells or damage easy to forget.  A lot of what's in the races is there just because it was there in 1e and is part of the heritage, except most races get darkvision because you're really playing a 1e style game where vision/light matters. This is before we get to the incoherent worldbuilding, the rapid expansion of races,  the fact that neither the implied or default setting (FR) tell DMs how all these humanoids fit together in a cohesive way, and of course the issues of essentialism.  I'd rather races/ancestries and cultures be tied to particular settings than part of the kitchen sink.



Race as class died because of extra settings, subraces, DM world-building and player stories. 
That simplicity in PC also made the stories and worlds simple as well.

5e went far in the other direction but didn't ponder the idea heavily. Skill should come from background. Only long lived races (and humans) and skill monkey classes should get any bonus skills. Every noble should have access to the face and academic skills. Criminals would have all the underhanded skills. And soldiers would have all the physical and military skills. So if you wanted all your elves to be snooty high elves, you just make all elves nobles. Then penalize their diplomacy because they are snooty.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> Ugh, I hate, hate, _hate_ race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter _maybe _and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.
> 
> Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.



I never got the appeal of raceclass, I could consider subclasses made by a subrace that spread to others over time like that elf wizard who has a sword but homogenizing a race is bad plus if the mechanics are cool you want to be able to play it with any races.


----------



## mrswing

I would make it much shorter and easier to read. Get away from the textbook feel, reduce some aspects (only the Tolkien fantasy races in the basic PHB) and really watch over clarity in the rule explanations. 128 pages would be the goal. If it’s more than that the extra pages should all be art. Try to méke this as appealing and accessible as possible to get as many new players in as possible.


----------



## Mind of tempest

mrswing said:


> I would make it much shorter and easier to read. Get away from the textbook feel, reduce some aspects (only the Tolkien fantasy races in the basic PHB) and really watch over clarity in the rule explanations. 128 pages would be the goal. If it’s more than that the extra pages should all be art. Try to méke this as appealing and accessible as possible to get as many new players in as possible.



I disagree with you on the races but easier to read would be a godsend as I had to give someone a video tutorial to explain how to set up the sheet.


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> Race as class died because of extra settings, subraces, DM world-building and player stories.
> That simplicity in PC also made the stories and worlds simple as well.



Race-as-class is barely a blip in the D&D game.

OD&D (1974) didn't have a "dwarf" class; they only allowed dwarves to advance as fighting-men. Ditto halflings. Elves could pick either fighting-man OR magic-user and switch between the two from adventure to adventure.

The Holmes Basic Book (1977) allows dwarves and halflings to be either fighting-men or thieves*, and elves to be multi-classed fighting-men/magic-users, splitting XP between both (the first multi-class character). _* Although they referred you to the not-yet-produced AD&D game for this. _

AD&D (1977-79) of course kept race and class separate and added greater options (in the form of additional multi-class options or new race and class options).

The Revised Basic game (Moldvay 1981 and Metzner 1983) were the ones to go back to the drawing board and make "dwarf", "elf" and "halfling' a single class to represent race. While that was the background for B/X and later BECMI, it's worth noting that Basic itself couldn't be bothered to stick to its own rules, as the Gazetteers line for Mystara introduced variant classes like dwarf cleric, elf warrior, or elf shaman. Later still, the Princess Ark gave us races (rakasta, lupin, half-elf) that just straight-up used the "human" classes fighter/magic-user/cleric/thief effectively making them race and class separate like in AD&D.

Of Course, AD&D 2nd edition (1989) and all subsequent WotC versions (3e through 5e) kept race/class separate.

So, race-as-class existed in one strand of D&D that existed from 1981 through 1995, and not even consistently during that line. OD&D through Holmes to AD&D kept the concept of race/class separate from 1974 through today. If anything, it's the weird-aberrant strain of design and a gross oversimplification of what was the demihuman rules during the 1970's. It was never the dominant design strategy; it just feels that way since most of us started with some version of the Basic Rules in the 80's or 90's and then bought a Player's Handbook later which differed in design.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Ugh, I hate, hate, _hate_ race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter _maybe _and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.
> 
> Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.



You can fix that by having several race as class options, like dwarf warrior, dwarf berserker, dwarf machinist, et cetera. At least one OSR game I know does this.  Works out pretty well, and let's you hit several archetypes at once.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> You can fix that by having several race as class options, like dwarf warrior, dwarf berserker, dwarf machinist, et cetera. At least one OSR game I know does this. Works out pretty well, and let's you hit several archetypes at once.



What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class? 

I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Remathilis said:


> What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class?
> 
> I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.



I suppose if they are sufficiently different concepts they could be made into a subclass, why should the elves be the only one who gets one in 5e?


----------



## Remathilis

Mind of tempest said:


> I suppose if they are sufficiently different concepts they could be made into a subclass, why should the elves be the only one who gets one in 5e?



SCAG was very experimental when it came to subclass design, being it was the first project outside the PHB to add new ones. It's not surprising they dropped the racial requirements on subclasses (and removed it off the one they reprinted). In light of races becoming less important mechanically, I don't think this is design space WotC has any intention to explore except for those youthful dalliances.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class?
> 
> I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.



Oh, AD&D's system is simpler.  Multiple race as class is just an interesting way to encourage archetypes that you dont get when you mix and match everything.   I was just responding to your comment.  Race as class would never work as mainstream D&D in 2021.  People like the idea of being able to pick anything, even if they don't in practice.  Visibly restrict options and social media would revolt.


----------



## Malmuria

Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity.  They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way.  For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class?  Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way.  Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play?  Why are there racial weapon proficiencies?   Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?  

To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes.  My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily.  Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.


----------



## Parmandur

Malmuria said:


> Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity.  They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way.  For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class?  Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way.  Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play?  Why are there racial weapon proficiencies?   Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?
> 
> To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes.  My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily.  Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.



Floating ASICS work better for the main rule of rolling character stat. Adding to point buy or an array doesn't do anything for any table I've ever played with.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Malmuria said:


> Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity.  They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way.  For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class?  Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way.  Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play?  Why are there racial weapon proficiencies?   Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?
> 
> To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes.  My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily.  Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.



Enough people like to roll stats (and more importantly, associate it with D&D) that you're never going to get a mainstream version of the game that eschews it.  And, as was said above, ASIs feel good with rolled stats.  I think we should junk them entirely so people would actually use feats, at least past 1st level.
We all have a lot of cool ideas about how we'd change the game, but the most relevant factor is always going to be maintaining sales for the game AS D&D. You're not making your own fantasy heartbreaker here, you're publishing the next version of D&D.  Just having the name changes everything.


----------



## Greg K

Micah Sweet said:


> Oh, AD&D's system is simpler.  Multiple race as class is just an interesting way to encourage archetypes that you dont get when you mix and match everything.   I was just responding to your comment.  Race as class would never work as mainstream D&D in 2021.  People like the idea of being able to pick anything, even if they don't in practice.  Visibly restrict options and social media would revolt.



I don't see the need for race as class. For a given campaign, the DM can state that, among a specific race (if race is being treated as a monoculture) or culture,  classes a,b,c (and/or class variants thereof (if appropriate*)) and subclasses x,y,z are found. Those become the starting choices for a starting character from that race or culture.

* someone from a foraging or pastoral cultural without locks, a thieves guild, and other cultural elements for a thief might not have access to thieves tools or thieve's cant or even the Thief subclass. However, the Scout might be appropriate as is creating a Wilderness Rogue variant of the Rogue and substituting a) some class skills, b) proficiency in thieves tools for herbalist kit, c) thieves' cant with something else (e.g. Trail Signs and Signals or an additional language), and d) make some changes to the starting equipment.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> You can fix that by having several race as class options, like dwarf warrior, dwarf berserker, dwarf machinist, et cetera. At least one OSR game I know does this.  Works out pretty well, and let's you hit several archetypes at once.



That would also me OK for me. Which game is this?


----------



## Malmuria

Micah Sweet said:


> Enough people like to roll stats (and more importantly, associate it with D&D) that you're never going to get a mainstream version of the game that eschews it.  And, as was said above, ASIs feel good with rolled stats.  I think we should junk them entirely so people would actually use feats, at least past 1st level.
> We all have a lot of cool ideas about how we'd change the game, but the most relevant factor is always going to be maintaining sales for the game AS D&D. You're not making your own fantasy heartbreaker here, you're publishing the next version of D&D.  Just having the name changes everything.



I like rolling for stats too (but honestly would be ok with just doing 4d6 drop lowest without any ASI at all).  ASIs could also be moved to class to reinforce class feel, and I'm assuming that most people put their floating +2 or select race based on what would most benefit their class anyway.

In terms of what's viable for a revised edition, It's honestly not that much of a shift from what's in Tasha's anyway.  Race would be thematic, according to setting, but less important during character creation mechanically.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Remathilis said:


> SCAG was very experimental when it came to subclass design, being it was the first project outside the PHB to add new ones. It's not surprising they dropped the racial requirements on subclasses (and removed it off the one they reprinted). In light of races becoming less important mechanically, I don't think this is design space WotC has any intention to explore except for those youthful dalliances.



not locked into a race but *generated* from a races lore, so a human can become a bladedancer but it was invented by elves and says a lot about elves.


----------



## Greg K

I just edited my post about Mearls discussing how the class design guidelines were finalized after some classes having already been completed. I left off the word _some_.  Aargh! I will be glad when the remaining COVID long haul symptoms are gone and, among other things, I can review and edit what I am posting without difficulty.


----------



## tetrasodium

Get rid of subraces.  Make the races look more like the "survivor" statblocks in VGR complete with the low ability scores & a couple thematic abilities.  Plud a bunch of stuff others mentioned already.  In short make 6e because 5e is designed to fight any attempts at changes


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> That would also me OK for me. Which game is this?



Adventurer Conqueror King by Autarch.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Malmuria said:


> I like rolling for stats too (but honestly would be ok with just doing 4d6 drop lowest without any ASI at all).  ASIs could also be moved to class to reinforce class feel, and I'm assuming that most people put their floating +2 or select race based on what would most benefit their class anyway.
> 
> In terms of what's viable for a revised edition, It's honestly not that much of a shift from what's in Tasha's anyway.  Race would be thematic, according to setting, but less important during character creation mechanically.



I really think race/species/lineage needs to have some mechanical weight.  These are iconic fantasy archetypes, and it is expected that a dwarf and an elf are different in some intrinsic way.  Replacing ASIs with some cool racial abilities would be my preference. We just need to figure out what they are.


----------



## teitan

Malmuria said:


> I think a new edition would be more satisfying to everyone if they had some verson of a basic/advanced split, probably without calling it that.  5e has grown successful in part by catering to a wide variety of playstyles, but becomes 'everyone's second-favorite edition.'  When these discussions of what the next edition should include come up you can almost guess what people's favorite edition is.  Some people really like the simplicity and maybe only play 10-15 times a year and haven't gotten past level 6.  Other people have lots of opinions about the best paladin subclass including UA options, having played all of them.



This currently exists in 5e, pay attention to what says "Optional Rule". Turning off all the optional rules gives you what you are asking for while turning them on allows you to customize the game in different ways that can really change the flavor and style of game and complexity. See this list for what is specifically called out.


----------



## teitan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I've rationalized nature clerics as the coming of a new religious paradigm pushing out the "old ways" of druidism, but it's been an awkward fit having both in the system all these years, for sure.



I view one as Wicca or Druidic revivalism and the other as the remnants of the old religion.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Enough people like to roll stats (and more importantly, associate it with D&D) that you're never going to get a mainstream version of the game that eschews it. And, as was said above, ASIs feel good with rolled stats. I think we should junk them entirely so people would actually use feats, at least past 1st level.
> We all have a lot of cool ideas about how we'd change the game, but the most relevant factor is always going to be maintaining sales for the game AS D&D. You're not making your own fantasy heartbreaker here, you're publishing the next version of D&D. Just having the name changes everything.



Meh. You're rolling stats randomly with the expressed knowledge that you could end up with a very strong or a very weak set of scores. You know the risks, let the dice fall where they may. Only rolled a 14? Don't expect racial mods to bail you out.


----------



## Parmandur

Remathilis said:


> Meh. You're rolling stats randomly with the expressed knowledge that you could end up with a very strong or a very weak set of scores. You know the risks, let the dice fall where they may. Only rolled a 14? Don't expect racial mods to bail you out.



Yet that is how the game works. Rolled stats are assumed, as is a base ASI. Neither of those is likely changing.


----------



## Remathilis

Parmandur said:


> Yet that is how the game works. Rolled stats are assumed, as is a base ASI. Neither of those is likely changing.



We'll see. ASI hasn't been a consistent element of the game, and rolled stats have waxed and waned. It's completely possible a new character generation method to replace both could exist without explicitly invalidating older books.


----------



## Malmuria

The ASIs and ribbon abilities were supposed to reinforce archetype, but now they are moving (rightly so, imo) away from that to allow more variety in characters and to distance the game from essentialism.  Racial feats, like in pathfinder 2e, could be the solution of allowing both for archetype and variety, but I feel that gets too crunchy and potentially bloaty for many if not most 5e players.


----------



## tetrasodium

Remathilis said:


> We'll see. ASI hasn't been a consistent element of the game, and rolled stats have waxed and waned. It's completely possible a new character generation method to replace both could exist without explicitly invalidating older books.



Possibly something like survivor statblocks or a low power array.  Not because they do something better or worse so much as the fact that it's one of the least painful ways to _partially_ undo the mistake of designing the math of 5e with zero allowance for magic items by forcing _some_ room for them.


----------



## Faolyn

Malmuria said:


> The ASIs and ribbon abilities were supposed to reinforce archetype, but now they are moving (rightly so, imo) away from that to allow more variety in characters and to distance the game from essentialism.  Racial feats, like in pathfinder 2e, could be the solution of allowing both for archetype and variety, but I feel that gets too crunchy and potentially bloaty for many if not most 5e players.



Instead of feats, just bake them into the class as choices, like they're doing for Level Up. When you reach whateverth level, pick one of these 2-3 options. Ditto for races. You are an elf, so pick one of these options. Back in 3e, it seemed like every book was coming up with new feats, but if they're reduced to choices within a race or class, I don't think people will be racing to make as many new ones.


----------



## Minigiant

teitan said:


> I view one as Wicca or Druidic revivalism and the other as the remnants of the old religion.



In the new setting I'm developing,  one as modernization of the Nature cult and the other as the hard lining of specific aspects.

Same with grave clerics and a witch doctor class.


----------



## Malmuria

Faolyn said:


> Instead of feats, just bake them into the class as choices, like they're doing for Level Up. When you reach whateverth level, pick one of these 2-3 options. Ditto for races. You are an elf, so pick one of these options. Back in 3e, it seemed like every book was coming up with new feats, but if they're reduced to choices within a race or class, I don't think people will be racing to make as many new ones.



When you level up in a class, the in-game explanation is that you get better at doing "your job."  Certainly, it stretches plausibility, but still kind of tracks to a fantasy version of getting better a thing when you practice.  But what is leveling up as a race?  Does an elf get better at being elf-y?  Or become more elf-y over time, but only if they practice (i.e. gain xp)?  Again, there's a tension between archetype and world building, imo.

Granted, I never was one for finding synergies or mechanical character building, and I get tired of classic fantasy, so I'm probably the wrong audience for that kind of change anyway.


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> Back in 3e, it seemed like every book was coming up with new feats, but if they're reduced to choices within a race or class, I don't think people will be racing to make as many new ones.



4e, and Pathfinder 2e, both took this path. Feats for race, class, skills, and general (and probably more, it's been a minute). What I remembered was that the vast majority of those feats were boring. +2 to a certain action with a skill. +1 to a certain attack roll. Use a racial or class feature an additional time. Rare and powerful were the feats that actually gave you something interesting to do with your PC beyond "I'm a wee bit better at x". 

Say what you will about 5e feats, most of them at least feel like they give you new abilities rather than improve combat and skill math...


----------



## Undrave

If I was in charge the Wizard wouldn't have 8 friggin' subclass based on their most boring aspect (magic schools). Maneuvers would be a thing all Martial types could (potentially) have, with their own section of the book the same way there's a Spells section. Some would just be things you can DO all the time without needing to spend a ressource (like a Barbarian just using Menacing Attack every turn to frighten someone, and Reckless Attack would be a maneuver), some would require to spend Superiority Dice. How to gain Superiority dice would be different from subclass to subclasses.



Remathilis said:


> 4e, and Pathfinder 2e, both took this path. Feats for race, class, skills, and general (and probably more, it's been a minute). What I remembered was that the vast majority of those feats were boring. +2 to a certain action with a skill. +1 to a certain attack roll. Use a racial or class feature an additional time. Rare and powerful were the feats that actually gave you something interesting to do with your PC beyond "I'm a wee bit better at x".
> 
> Say what you will about 5e feats, most of them at least feel like they give you new abilities rather than improve combat and skill math...



Channel Divinity feats and the MC Feats were a great way to add a new tool to your arsenal. Ritual Casting was neat for non-casters too.


----------



## Faolyn

Malmuria said:


> When you level up in a class, the in-game explanation is that you get better at doing "your job."  Certainly, it stretches plausibility, but still kind of tracks to a fantasy version of getting better a thing when you practice.  But what is leveling up as a race?  Does an elf get better at being elf-y?  Or become more elf-y over time, but only if they practice (i.e. gain xp)?  Again, there's a tension between archetype and world building, imo.



Well, racial bits can be one-and-done (although LU has paragon gifts, which are tied to your heritage and come at 10th level). Although you _could _say that yes, some racial abilities can get better. Elves have elf weapon training (which automatically gets better as you level up anyway) and magic or hiding abilities, both of which can be expanded upon. Dwarfs can improve their stonecunning, perhaps learning more about stone and unlocking new abilities as a result. Etc.


----------



## teitan

Remathilis said:


> SCAG was very experimental when it came to subclass design, being it was the first project outside the PHB to add new ones. It's not surprising they dropped the racial requirements on subclasses (and removed it off the one they reprinted). In light of races becoming less important mechanically, I don't think this is design space WotC has any intention to explore except for those youthful dalliances.



I don't like the removal of Elf from Bladesinger as it was a cultural thing in a famously xenophobic race. As a DM I'd prefer to do a handwave of the requirement while retaining the flavor of it.


----------



## teitan

Remathilis said:


> Meh. You're rolling stats randomly with the expressed knowledge that you could end up with a very strong or a very weak set of scores. You know the risks, let the dice fall where they may. Only rolled a 14? Don't expect racial mods to bail you out.



Ha, only rolled a 14! HA. HA! 


HA!







Only a 14....



HAHAHA



;-)


----------



## teitan

Malmuria said:


> The ASIs and ribbon abilities were supposed to reinforce archetype, but now they are moving (rightly so, imo) away from that to allow more variety in characters and to distance the game from essentialism.  Racial feats, like in pathfinder 2e, could be the solution of allowing both for archetype and variety, but I feel that gets too crunchy and potentially bloaty for many if not most 5e players.



It also ignores that Feats are not a core rule, they are an optional rule and I don't see WOTC moving back to 3e era design. One of the strengths of 5e has been that it is a very easy entry game, moreso than any other edition has been. They cracked that code quite successfully. Making Feats core would complicate the game because they are inessential to playing the game.


----------



## teitan

Faolyn said:


> Instead of feats, just bake them into the class as choices, like they're doing for Level Up. When you reach whateverth level, pick one of these 2-3 options. Ditto for races. You are an elf, so pick one of these options. Back in 3e, it seemed like every book was coming up with new feats, but if they're reduced to choices within a race or class, I don't think people will be racing to make as many new ones.



So Pathfinder 2e.


----------



## Faolyn

teitan said:


> So Pathfinder 2e.



Not quite. Those are feats, so knowing what I know of PF, there's probably a bunch of new racial feats already published.

I mean more like, you play an elf, so when you make your character you get to choose between a cantrip or getting to Hide even when only lightly obscured. More like what's covered by subraces now, but not actually being subraces.


----------



## teitan

Faolyn said:


> Not quite. Those are feats, so knowing what I know of PF, there's probably a bunch of new racial feats already published.
> 
> I mean more like, you play an elf, so when you make your character you get to choose between a cantrip or getting to Hide even when only lightly obscured. More like what's covered by subraces now, but not actually being subraces.



So Tasha's optional race rules.


----------



## Faolyn

teitan said:


> So Tasha's optional race rules.



Combined with more standard racial abilities. Like, I think we can all agree on trance and fey heritage for elves. Then you'd get your additional options to customize your elf.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Combined with more standard racial abilities. Like, I think we can all agree on trance and fey heritage for elves. Then you'd get your additional options to customize your elf.




So you are saying make High, Wood, or Dark choosable options for every race.

Fey: fey step, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
Dark: superior darkvision, light sensitivity, 3 darkness spells, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
High: bonus wizard cantrip, bonus language, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
Hill: Toughness
Low: +5 speed, nimble escape, bonus tool,  
Mountain: light and medium armor
Sea: swim speed, speak with sea animals. 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
Wild: bonus druid cantrip, Sylvan, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
Wood: +5ft speed, mask of wild, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons

So if your dwarves live in forests, you can pick Wood + Dwarf. Whereas a playing a druidic dwarf is Wild + Dwarf


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> So you are saying make High, Wood, or Dark choosable options for every race.
> 
> Fey: fey step, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Dark: superior darkvision, light sensitivity, 3 darkness spells, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> High: bonus wizard cantrip, bonus language, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Hill: Toughness
> Low: +5 speed, nimble escape, bonus tool,
> Mountain: light and medium armor
> Sea: swim speed, speak with sea animals. 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Wild: bonus druid cantrip, Sylvan, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Wood: +5ft speed, mask of wild, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> 
> So if your dwarves live in forests, you can pick Wood + Dwarf. Whereas a playing a druidic dwarf is Wild + Dwarf



You definitely could. I see three ways you can go:

Keep them racial. Fey, Dark, High, Wood, etc., are options only for elves and half-elves. Hill, Mountain, etc. are only for dwarfs and half-dwarfs. 

Make them regional, possibly using the type of terrains available to Land Druids as a baseline (and possibly also expanding upon those). If you grew up in the Forest, you can choose Wood for your racial trait. You can also combine them with Culture, if you want to use that as well. If a possible Culture is Great City, then someone from a Forest Great City would have different traits than someone from a Dark Great City.

Make 'em mix-and-match. Pick what you want. Fey dwarf, Dark human, Sea gnome. A bit wild, but if these traits are written in a way to help push backgrounds and other meaningful choices, then good.


----------



## JEB

Faolyn said:


> You definitely could. I see three ways you can go:
> 
> Keep them racial. Fey, Dark, High, Wood, etc., are options only for elves and half-elves. Hill, Mountain, etc. are only for dwarfs and half-dwarfs.
> 
> Make them regional, possibly using the type of terrains available to Land Druids as a baseline (and possibly also expanding upon those). If you grew up in the Forest, you can choose Wood for your racial trait. You can also combine them with Culture, if you want to use that as well. If a possible Culture is Great City, then someone from a Forest Great City would have different traits than someone from a Dark Great City.
> 
> Make 'em mix-and-match. Pick what you want. Fey dwarf, Dark human, Sea gnome. A bit wild, but if these traits are written in a way to help push backgrounds and other meaningful choices, then good.



These are cool ideas, but why not all of the above? Have some generic cultures/subraces for regions or environments or the like, and also some intended for association with specific species, that you can also apply to characters from other species to represent upbringing. Half-orcs are orcs with human cultural traits or humans with orc cultural traits, for example. But any character race can have "Underdark" or "Desert" or "Urban" traits.


----------



## Faolyn

JEB said:


> These are cool ideas, but why not all of the above? Have some generic cultures/subraces for regions or environments or the like, and also some intended for association with specific species, that you can also apply to characters from other species to represent upbringing. Half-orcs are orcs with human cultural traits or humans with orc cultural traits, for example. But any character race can have "Underdark" or "Desert" or "Urban" traits.



Sure!


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> You definitely could. I see three ways you can go:
> 
> Keep them racial. Fey, Dark, High, Wood, etc., are options only for elves and half-elves. Hill, Mountain, etc. are only for dwarfs and half-dwarfs.
> 
> Make them regional, possibly using the type of terrains available to Land Druids as a baseline (and possibly also expanding upon those). If you grew up in the Forest, you can choose Wood for your racial trait. You can also combine them with Culture, if you want to use that as well. If a possible Culture is Great City, then someone from a Forest Great City would have different traits than someone from a Dark Great City.
> 
> Make 'em mix-and-match. Pick what you want. Fey dwarf, Dark human, Sea gnome. A bit wild, but if these traits are written in a way to help push backgrounds and other meaningful choices, then good.



My only concern is that you've turned a 1-2 stage choice point (pick race, sometimes pick subrace) info a three or more one, as now every race is a three prong affair (race, lineage, culture) and that's before any internal choices, like pick languages and such.

The trade-off for customization is complexity. 5e to me has hit the sweet spot for meaningful choices during chargen and systems that add multiple choice points (like 2e Players Options or Pathfinder) gets torturously long to make a character.


----------



## Malmuria

Minigiant said:


> So you are saying make High, Wood, or Dark choosable options for every race.
> 
> Fey: fey step, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Dark: superior darkvision, light sensitivity, 3 darkness spells, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> High: bonus wizard cantrip, bonus language, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Hill: Toughness
> Low: +5 speed, nimble escape, bonus tool,
> Mountain: light and medium armor
> Sea: swim speed, speak with sea animals. 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Wild: bonus druid cantrip, Sylvan, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> Wood: +5ft speed, mask of wild, 2 bonus simple weapons, 2 bonus martial weapons
> 
> So if your dwarves live in forests, you can pick Wood + Dwarf. Whereas a playing a druidic dwarf is Wild + Dwarf



What I'm unsure about is in play, what is going to make your character feel like a particular kind of elf.  Tools have limited usefulness and skills can come from anywhere and in 5e are abstracted, so I don't thing those do the trick.  Movement speed, armor and weapon proficiency will similarly not really yield distinctiveness, since every other race will also have subraces/cultures and there might be rules for culture.  Darkvision is everywhere.  Cantrips maybe, but if you are playing a high elf bard does it really matter if your mage hand is coming from your race or your class, especially if the dwarf sorcerer also has mage hand?  Part of the problem is the "typing" of wotc's dnd games, with each character being composed of a subset of  universal pools of abilities (spells, skills, tools, etc).  So the easiest design is to say, "ok, you are x kind of character, you get this cantrip or this tool," but everyone gets those thigns, and from multiple sources (race, class(es), background, feats) and it all kind of washes out in play.  From a game perspective I can see the appeal if you like mixing and matching abilities in character creation.  

Oddly, I think "flaws" or limitations are more likely to add distinctiveness, like sunlight sensitivity, because that's the sort of thing that will come up constantly during play.

I'm not very familiar with pathfinder 2e, but I took a quick look at their wiki for elves and I'm not sure it does the trick.  A lot of feats were stuff that many players and dms will just forget about during play.  Also that game looks exhausting.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> My only concern is that you've turned a 1-2 stage choice point (pick race, sometimes pick subrace) info a three or more one, as now every race is a three prong affair (race, lineage, culture) and that's before any internal choices, like pick languages and such.
> 
> The trade-off for customization is complexity. 5e to me has hit the sweet spot for meaningful choices during chargen and systems that add multiple choice points (like 2e Players Options or Pathfinder) gets torturously long to make a character.



Meh. I've been doing that for sample Level Up characters--which also adds Destiny as a level of complexity (and also Maneuvers, for martial characters). It takes a _tiny_ bit longer but I think the benefits, in terms of flexibility and "realism" (since not all members of a specific race are the same), far outweigh the time cost.


----------



## Faolyn

Malmuria said:


> Oddly, I think "flaws" or limitations are more likely to add distinctiveness, like sunlight sensitivity, because that's the sort of thing that will come up constantly during play.



The main problem with flaws like that is if you manage to get a workaround--like sunglasses--then they become completely moot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Okay, been awhile since this thread started and has been dying down in activity lately, but it took me this long to think of what I would do, so I might as well put it down. I'll go through the sections of the 5e PHB and list the main changes that I would make to each. 

*First off, the Step-by-Step Character-Building section.* Here, I would just do a minor change, and that would be to make Standard-Array/Point-Buy be the default, with rolling being the variant. Then, highlight that rolling unbalances the game and warn new players about this. I was not aware of this when I first started 5e, so I would like to prevent similar mistakes in the future for other newer players/DMs. 

*Second, the Race section.* Add more races! We don't even have 10 in the PHB. Add Satyrs, Minotaurs, Centaurs, Aarakocra, Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, Goliaths, Goblins, Kobolds, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Orcs, Tritons, and more (maybe the Eberron Races?)! Let character diversity be a part of D&D 5.5e/6e from the get-go! I would straight up drop the Half-Elf and Half-Orc races, as Elves and Orcs fill those respective thematic niches, and having "half-human, half-X race" just over complicates everything for future racial combinations (Muls, Half-Giants/Half-Ogres, etc). I would just create a new system for a "Hybrid Race" character, where you would choose your two parent races and pick and choose features from each parent race dependent on what they are (like Darkvision and Fey Ancestry from Elves, Powerful Build and Relentless Endurance from Orcs, etc), and then specify what races can and can't interbreed (like Dragonborn can't naturally produce children with Halflings, but they could with Lizardfolk and Kobolds). IMHO, if players can play a Half-Human/Half-Elf and Half-Human/Half-Orc, they should be able to play a Half-Dwarf/Half-Orc, a Half-Goblin/Half-Gnome, a Half-Golaith/Half-Orc and more. 

Next, make every race have the Post-Tasha's racial changes. No racial ASIs, no cultural features in the racial stats (like proficiencies with language, tools, most skills, etc), and all inherent magic can use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma for its spellcasting ability (you choose when you take the race) and you can use your own spell slots to cast them.

Then, add a Lineage section. This would include (at the least) Aasimar, Genasi, Tieflings, and Hexblood, but hopefully others as well (I'd be fine with Dhampir and Reborn being in the PHB). I never understood why only humans ever mated with Angels, Devils, and Genies. Let any race be Planetouched, like Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft let any race be half-vampire, hag-spawn, or a Reborn. 

Additionally, I would add another Hit Dice to each race dependent on their size and "toughness", so Halflings, Gnomes, Goblins, and Kobolds would get a d6, Humans, Elves, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, and Tritons, would get a d8, Centaurs, Dragonborn, Dwarves, Goliaths, and Hobgoblins would get a d10, and Bugbears, Minotaurs, and Orcs would get a d12. 

*Third, the Class section.* Add at least an Artificer, and hopefully a Psion class to the PHB (hopefully also an Arcane Gish class, but that's wishful thinking). All subclasses for all classes come at level 1, and every class gets more choices to make so no single character of that class (even if they're the same race and same subclass) is the same. I'd also put requirements to be any given class (like the Multiclassing Ability Score prerequisites). Classes that get Fighting Styles get them expanded from just a small mechanical boost to something on par with a Warlock's Pact Boon, and I'd add Tasha's-style Fighting Styles to the PHB and a few others that encourage other styles of fighting, and they also automatically get Maneuvers similar to the Battlemaster. Spellcasters would get to choose an "Arcane Style", where they could choose to focus on Concentration spells, Blasting spells, AoE's with duration, and so on, which would let them be incentivized to be built differently from other casters. I would also give every class at least 5 subclasses, and probably 9 at most (no, Cleric and Wizard, you don't get twice/thrice as many subclasses as everyone else). 

For the main changes to the classes that I would do, see the bulleted list below:

Artificer gets more subclasses (Painter, Weaver, Botanist, etc), and the Alchemist is actually on par with the other subclasses. I would then grant them a feature to choose whether they focus on giving away their infusions or keep them for themselves, and give benefits for when someone that has chosen to do one of those styles actually does it (like making magical armor that you give to your friends better if you choose to be a "Team Supporter" Artificer-style). 
Barbarian is renamed to Berserker, and becomes more primal (like it was in 4e). This would separate it further from the Fighter class, and allow for more magical barbarian themes to not have to be re-explained by all the magical/pseudo-magical subclasses that come later on. Path of the Beast, Ancestral Guardians, Zealot, Tempest, and Juggernaut would be the main subclasses (Juggernaut would be a heavily-armored barbarian, like what the Battlerager was supposed to be). 
Bard would probably become an artificer-style half caster (half-caster that gets spells at level 1, gets cantrips, and is mostly support-focused). I never understood why Bards were full-casters, as there aren't many 6th-9th level spells that fit them, IMHO (all of the ones that are on their list seem like "oh, we need bards to have 6th-9th level spells! Quick! Throw every non-damaging, non-druidy spell that's in the game and call it good!"). Subclasses would be changed from "Bardic College" to "Bardic Technique/Trade" (I'd then change "Arcane Tradition" for wizards to "Arcane College/School"). The main subclasses would be a Stories (mix of Lore and Spirits), Battlesong (mix of Valor and Swords), Speech (mix of Eloquence and the frightening part of Whispers and enchantment part of Glamour), and Allure (which would be the "feyish beauty" part of Glamour with some THP features). I could also see the Creation and Whispers bards coming back in some form, but slightly changed in order to codify their themes a bit better (Creation could be about convincing the spirits inside inanimate objects to animate and aid them in combat, and Whispers could be about secrets, nightmares, and Wanda Maximov-style mind-control). 
Cleric stops being the default healing/resurrection class. Cleric is someone that worships a deity/pantheon/aspect of the universe, which shouldn't (IMO) automatically make them be "pseudo-Jesus-es" (in terms of power). A cleric's spell list should be largely determined by their subclass, with a Warlock's "Expanded Spell List", but all the way up to level 9 with probably around 3 spells per level (Death Clerics would get necromancy spells and necrotic-damage dealing spells, Life Clerics would get the "Jesus" spells, Light Clerics would get radiant damaging spells and light-creating spells (not _freaking *fireball*_), Tempest Clerics would get lightning/thunder damaging spells and wind/storm spells, Nature Clerics would get nature spells, Knowledge Clerics would get divination and mind-reading spells, etc). WotC did it all backwards with 5e; Classes that prepare spells should get expanded spell lists from their subclasses, and Classes that learn/know spells should get automatically known spells. Additionally, the base Cleric class wouldn't get Turn/Destroy Undead, that would probably be left to Grave Clerics. 
Druids lose Wild Shape as a core mechanic, and that becomes a feature that only the Circle of the Moon gets. Something akin to Channel Divinity (maybe called "Primal Channeling"?) should be added to the core class, with different subclasses getting different features from it (Wildfire Druids summon a fire elemental, Stars Druids enter star-mode, etc). The main subclasses in the PHB should be Circle of the Moon, one circle for every element/season (Circle of the Sea, Circle of Wildfires, Circle of Winter, Circle of Air/Storms, Circle of Earth/Bones, etc), and possibly something like Circle of Spores and Circle of Stars (though I would also tweak their themes and mechanics a bit). 
Fighters become actually fun to play. No more Attack action spamming. If you're going to attack, you have to put more than two braincells into doing so. Like I said above, there are more Fighting Styles (Mounted Combatant, Sword-and-Board, Protector, Bruiser, Pugilist, Archer, etc) and they become more important and they automatically get maneuvers. I would then give them "Eldritch Invocations", like Warlocks get, but for martial fighting (probably called "Battle Tactics", or something like that). One battle tactic could be Action Surge, another could be Second Wind, a later level one could be Indomitable, another could give you a Climbing/Swimming speed, and so on. The main subclasses would probably be the Champion (leaning into the Hercules-style warrior/gladiator, and they'd get concentration-based combat features), Warlord (with team-support features, flanking/coup de grace-style "maneuvers", and enemy-analysis), Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, and Arcane Archer (changed to actually not be garbage, though, and possibly merged with the Eldritch Knight subclass to grant it spellcasting). 
Monks stop being "Kung-Fu Fighters!", and instead become more generic brawlers. They'd get to focus on using Unarmed Strikes or Improvised Weapons, be able to focus on using DEX/STR and WIS (maybe CON), and be less inherently magical (at least with their later level abilities), instead being flavored as one that has perfected and honed their bodies to allow them to be great combatants/bruisers. Ki can stay the same, but would probably be reflavored to be less magical and more like "grit" and "physical energy". The main subclasses would be the Way of the Four Elements (but not awful), Mercy (probably with a different name, though), Astral Self, Silhouette (as a mix of Long Death and Shadow Monks that become more unearthly), Kensei (focusing on your weapon being one with your body), and Drunken Masters. 
Paladins stay largely the same, but I would get rid of the Smite spells, as they're rarely ever used. I would then probably merge Redemption and Devotion Paladins into the same subclass, change Oathbreaker to not be a necromancy subclass and merge its fear features with Conquest Paladins, and allow for paladins to be DEX based (at least for multiclass purposes). 
Rangers start out with changes similar to the ones in TCoE (except Favored Foe isn't concentration, and might just be changed to Hunter's Mark, and that would stop being a spell). I might even add heavy armor to the class and not make them focus on Dexterity, so they can cover way more types of characters besides just dual wielding Drizzt clones and bow-slinging Legolas-clones. The main subclasses would be Horizon Walker, Gloomstalker, Beast Master (Tasha's style), Fey Wanderer, and Monster Slayers. I'd completely get rid of the Hunter subclass, and just move most of its features to the base class (or at least features inspired by its "pick and choose features" options), allowing for Rangers to focus on being more like a rogue, more like a fighter, and more like a druid. 
Rogues also stay largely the same, but would also become more customizable (maybe with how they accomplish Sneak Attack, or what weapons/Cunning Action options they use?). The main subclasses would probably be Phantom, Scout, Investigator (mix of Mastermind and Inquisitive), Swashbuckler, and Faceless (magical Assassin combined with Whispers' Bards shadow-stealing ability). 
Sorcerers would become Constitution-based spellcasters, their subclasses would all add extra spells that they automatically know and switch out (limited like in TCoE), they'd automatically know all Metamagic options, and would have Spell Points called "Sorcery Points" (but more than in the DMG's Spell Point section, as they'd add their Sorcery Points x 1.5 to the Spell Points that they have). They'd be able to use Sorcery Points to both cast spells and use Metamagic options, and to refuel some subclass features. The main subclasses would be Draconic Bloodline, Divine Soul, Aberrant Mind, Clockwork Soul, Elemental Soul (which you'd choose your elemental sub-subclass like Genie Warlocks), and a Feyheart Sorcerer. 
Warlocks would largely stay the same, but their subclasses' spell lists would give them automatically known spells, Eldritch Blast would probably be a class feature that's damage type differed between the subclasses (necrotic for Undead, radiant for Celestial, Fire for Fiend, Psychic for Fey/GOO, cold for Hexblade, etc) and the class's spell list wouldn't automatically have the "evil" spells on them (like Hunger of Hadar, Hex, others that are typically "evil"/taboo spells), as IMO there's no reason why a person that makes a pact with a Celestial or Dryad should be able hex others. I'd include all 4 of 5e's Pact Boons and almost all of its Eldritch Invocations in the Warlock class, as well as another Pact Boon for people who are given armor from their patron. I would actually give Warlocks the most subclasses in this PHB, somewhere around one subclass per creature type (excluding Monstrosity, Humanoid, Ooze, and then combining Beast and Plant into one subclass for "the Wild One" subclass). 
Wizards ditch the whole "one subclass per school of magic" thing, because it's just boring as H E double-hockeysticks. The whole of the class would be able to use spellbooks as spellcasting foci, the subclasses would typically be combinations of different schools of magic, like the War Wizard, but there'd also be a Hypnomancer (Illusion and Enchantment), Lifedrinker (Necromancy and Evocation, to deal necrotic damage and heal themselves and others), Summoner (Evocation and Conjuration to summon creatures and heal them), and similar combinations. 
*Third, Backgrounds, Languages, and Personality Traits. *Languages stay mostly the same, as do personality traits, but Backgrounds are split into two; Profession and Heritage. Your profession works largely as 5e Backgrounds do, but would also include advice on continuing your profession and benefits from that (basically the Group Patron section of TCoE, but actually given mechanical effects). Profession would also give you quite a bit more than 5e backgrounds currently do, as they're basically just a bag of equipment, two skills, two minor proficiencies (language/tools), and one minor feature that you will probably never use. A Soldier profession should give you weapon proficiency, Nobles should have a noble estate with costs and consequences attached to it, and so on. I would also add more Professions to the PHB, like Bounty Hunters, Next, your Heritage is your cultural traits, like the armor and weapon training that Dwarves and Elves typically get. These would probably be generalized, like "Warrior Culture" for weapon/armor proficiencies, "Nomad Culture" for Survival/language/vehicle proficiency, "Trader Culture" for artisan's tools/Persuasion/language proficiency, and so on. 

*Fourth, Equipment. *I would add more weapons (firearms, yklwas, double-bladed scimitars, double-crossbows, katanas, etc), armor, and shields (lantern shields, tower shields, bucklers), and also make them all matter (IMO, nonmagical equipment shouldn't be a part of class balance, and all types of weapons/armor should be useful at all levels). Next, I'd add Vehicle rules (like from Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and maybe the ones similar to BGiA's Infernal War Machines) to the Equipment section. I'd also expand rules for modifying weapons, like silvering weapons (maybe even gilding weapons), making weapons out of Mithral/Adamantine (maybe even other types of magical metals, like Orichalcum, Infernal Iron, and Eberron's metal-woods), sharpening slashing weapons to have a razor-edge, covering bludgeoning weapons in spikes, covering piercing weapons and ammunition in barbs, and so on. I'd also put the rules for crafting mundane items and using tool proficiencies (like those from XGtE). 

*Fifth, Customization Options. *I've never used Multiclassing in my games, but I would keep it. However, it would have to be expanded to balance some changes that I'd make to the classes, like making Maneuvers not stack from different martial classes, and so on. Then, I'd add even more feats, let PCs get a feat or ASI every 3 levels instead of the normal 4, and not make there be awful feats (Keen Mind, Grappler, etc). 

*Sixth, Ability Scores.* I would make all ability scores be (more) equal. Constitution is no longer used to determine HP for all classes, instead, the two main Ability Scores for every class determines what Ability Score Modifiers you add to your Hit Dice when leveling up (choose one of the two ability scores to add its modifier to your maximized hit dice at level one, you use the other the next level, then alternating all the way to level 20). Next, Initiative is based off of DEX, INT, or WIS (chosen at level 1). Then, I'd add another skill (Endurance, which is CON-based), split Athletics into Mobility (for climbing/swimming/squeezing/grappling) and Brawn (for lifting, pulling, pushing, and similar brute-force strength checks), and get rid of Insight, Perception, and Survival (becoming just Passive checks). 

*Seventh, Adventuring.* I wouldn't change much (if anything) from this section. Maybe add downtime and better Social Interaction rules in this section, but that would be about it. 

*Eighth, Combat. *I'm completely stealing from Pathfinder 2.0; a Three-Action System. Instead of getting movement, an action, and a bonus action to be used on your turn, you instead get Three Actions each turn. Your action can be used for the normal purposes, with dashing replacing the free movement that people get. I would also add penalties for if you attack or cast spells multiple times each turn (disadvantage to hit for the second attack, +5 to the target's AC and disadvantage on the third attack, probably, with Extra Attack allowing for people to ignore some of these disadvantages and Dual Wielding allowing for a free attack on the first Attack action). 

*Ninth, Spellcasting. *No bonus action spells, instead, these are split into either "on hit" spells (like Branding Smite, which would trigger when you hit someone and not take an action, but only one would be allowed each turn/attack) and Minor Action spells (which would ignore penalties for casting multiple spells each turn). Next, Necromancy becomes the Necrotic Damage and Undead-creating/controlling spells, while Evocation becomes just the "instantaneous damage/effects" spell school, and a new Restoration school is created for healing and resurrection.


----------



## d24454_modern

*Basic:*

I would add an _Agility_ stat to balance out _Dexterity_.
*Races:*

Change the term to _Species_
Add _Aasimar_ and _Orcs_ to the main selection
Remove Half-Races
*Classes:*

Add _Artificer_ to the main book
*Equipment:*

Add _Firearms_ to the Weapon selection
*Other:*

Optional Epic-Level Ruleset


----------

