# What do you want to see excised?



## Reynard

What should 1D&D remove, so long as they are spiffing up the place?

I vote short rests. I hate them. I hate the way PCs want to take one after every encounter because they overspent their resources or tooka  couple hits. Just give players a post battle tape up of their wounds and move on.

While we are at it: gnomes.


----------



## jasper

Trance,  PC immune to anything make it advantage.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Most things I would like to see 'excised' are things that I want replacements for and, in particular, would massively change the game in many ways. So I'll go with something simple:

Trap options and mechanics that do not work as intended and are probably too difficul to replace with something that just works without causing further issues, assuming nothing drastic changes about the system

Example: True Strike. The spell is actively a bad idea in 5e for a wide variety of reasons; I don't see how you could rework it to work in 5e without making it ridiculous.


----------



## Reynard

ReshiIRE said:


> Most things I would like to see 'excised' are things that I want replacements for and, in particular, would massively change the game in many ways. So I'll go with something simple:
> 
> Trap options and mechanics that do not work as intended and are probably too difficul to replace with something that just works without causing further issues, assuming nothing drastic changes about the system
> 
> Example: True Strike. The spell is actively a bad idea in 5e for a wide variety of reasons; I don't see how you could rework it to work in 5e without making it ridiculous.



Interesting. What makes true strike a "trap" option?


----------



## ReshiIRE

Reynard said:


> Interesting. What makes true strike a "trap" option?



So it's a spell that, while a cantrip, takes up your entire action, so that next turn your first attack gains advantage, right?

Which, in effect, is the same thing as attacking twice at lower levels... and becomes worse for any melee character afterwards, who can just multi-attack* on both turns, and be much more likely to hit.

It is also concentration, meaning that if you are hit, you lose it all.

I guess actually True Stike might not have been the best example; make it a level 1 spell that grants advantage on first attack roll to any target you point at or touch (and maybe more than one attack roll if heightened?)

But as is, it should be removed. It's just pretty pointless IMO.

* which is a thing I would want replaced as well, by the by - by a system that makes melee and ranged character damage scale over time in some way, just like cantrips do, instead of having mutli-attack meaning that often higher level melee characters will miss more...


----------



## Cadence

Levels 13-20


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> Levels 13-20



I agree, except make it 11-20. Just compress the "playable" levels into 10 and lengthen the time it takes to _ding_ and, finally, make spell levels the same as character and class levels.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> I agree, except make it 11-20.



I was debating between saying stop at 10 or 12


----------



## tetrasodium

Death saves. 
Dark vision as written.
An entire chapter on character creation (ch1) that do not mention consulting the DM, setting adherence or working in collaboration with the other players until a player has a fully completed character ready for _you_ to tell  _your_ story.


----------



## Grantypants

Take out the things that mostly don't matter, or beef those things up so there's a purpose to writing it on your character sheet. 
For example, spell components. They're usually handwaved, unless the DM goes to great lengths to say "You can't cast spells right now". Either reduce them entirely to fluff or have class features or magic items or something that changes based on what components a spell has.


----------



## Reynard

Grantypants said:


> Take out the things that mostly don't matter, or beef those things up so there's a purpose to writing it on your character sheet.
> For example, spell components. They're usually handwaved, unless the DM goes to great lengths to say "You can't cast spells right now". Either reduce them entirely to fluff or have class features or magic items or something that changes based on what components a spell has.



I agree that eyes of newt should probably go away and all casters should require a focus instead. In theory I like the 3 categories of components but it rarely actually comes up. Just say, "To cast a spell a character must be able to speak loudly, move freely and be holding their spellcasting focus."


----------



## Amrûnril

Reynard said:


> I agree, except make it 11-20. Just compress the "playable" levels into 10 and lengthen the time it takes to _ding_ and, finally, make spell levels the same as character and class levels.



This would make for a less granular system, but I'm not sure that's what most of the people who aren't interested in high levels actually want. Some, at least, want want to avoid high levels specifically because they aren't interested in playing at the power level implied by high tier spells. Personally, I'd be thrilled if the system was set up to give us 20 levels worth of customization with only 10ish levels worth of power growth.


----------



## TwoSix

This is trivial, but I'd like them to take out proficiency bonus from the class table.  It's a completely class-independent value, and having it in the class description makes the value actively incorrect if you multiclass.


----------



## ART!

Bonus action, but that would make backward compatibility a problem. I'd rather just have something like Pathfinder's 3-action economy.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yeah, casting component are cumbersome for no real gain. Just have them use a focus + a tell (thematic fluff that makes your spellcasting noticeable) for all casters but the sorcerer (who just have their tell). 

Rework Darkvision. The fact that Dim light is only a penalty to a single skill instead of a whole sense is pretty weird: ''my sight is impacted by the lack of light, but I can still shoot a foe from 180 feet away and investigate the inner working of a trap without any problem!''.


----------



## Horwath

1. small races. Either give them penalties that goes with being a toddler in strength with adult IQ or remove them of PC options.
2. HDs. replace them with fixed healing as 4E healing surges
3. Reduce 6 saves to 3. use two abilities per save(str+con, dex+int, wis+cha). every class gets one save proficiency at start.
4. Medium armor
5. capstones at 20th level, all major abilities should be "Online" by 11th level. form that, just better versions and/or more usages.
6. short rest abilities, either make short rest 1-5 min long or remove them. Add then action to spend HDs/healing surges.


----------



## Horwath

ART! said:


> Bonus action, but that would make backward compatibility a problem. I'd rather just have something like Pathfinder's 3-action economy.



hmm,

I would go for 6 action turn, for 6 seconds of duration.
Much more granular.

Then you can have normal attack as 2 or 3 action points, and TWF as 3 or 4 action points.

haste spell can then be scaled across levels to gain 1, 2 or 3 action points.

spells can be from 1(current bonus action) to 4pts(normal spell) to 6 for really big spells.


----------



## payn

Short rest go bye bye for prof per day please.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> What should 1D&D remove, so long as they are spiffing up the place?
> 
> I vote short rests. I hate them. I hate the way PCs want to take one after every encounter because they overspent their resources or tooka  couple hits. Just give players a post battle tape up of their wounds and move on.



This is the intended use of short rests. I mean, they should be roughly after every _other_ combat, but yeah. They’re intended as a post-battle top-off.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> This is the intended use of short rests. I mean, they should be roughly after every _other_ combat, but yeah. They’re intended as a post-battle top-off.



Except half of the classes get the equivalent of a long rest at the short rest. That in itself is enough reason eliminate it.


----------



## Maxperson

ReshiIRE said:


> So it's a spell that, while a cantrip, takes up your entire action, so that next turn your first attack gains advantage, right?
> 
> Which, in effect, is the same thing as attacking twice at lower levels... and becomes worse for any melee character afterwards, who can just multi-attack* on both turns, and be much more likely to hit.
> 
> It is also concentration, meaning that if you are hit, you lose it all.
> 
> I guess actually True Stike might not have been the best example; make it a level 1 spell that grants advantage on first attack roll to any target you point at or touch (and maybe more than one attack roll if heightened?)
> 
> But as is, it should be removed. It's just pretty pointless IMO.
> 
> * which is a thing I would want replaced as well, by the by - by a system that makes melee and ranged character damage scale over time in some way, just like cantrips do, instead of having mutli-attack meaning that often higher level melee characters will miss more...



Yeah. I've never seen it used.  About the only use for it that I can see is if you are trying to make a shot with a crossbow that has a rope tied to it and you really want to land it so you can cross the chasm.  Cast Truestrike, aim, next round roll with advantage. Those kinds of situations, which don't happen often enough to make it worth taking.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Hot Take:

I want spell lists excised! Let all casters use any spell effect, flavoring them based on HOW they cast which would be differentiated by classes. 

Let casters have actual features that differentiate them beyond ''oh, but a wizard cant heal'' then having to create hoops and loops to create archetypes based on exceptions, selling high level features that let you poach one spell from a restricted list of spells the designers felt did not fit their narrow vision of a class as worthy feature. All the ''extra spell list'' or ''you may switch one spell for another'' features could be more thematic unique features instead.



If I want to play a magic bookworm who wants to heal people, let me do it. If I want to play a cleric of the goddess of illusions, let me. If I want to play a wandering artist known for its fire breathing and juggling, let me. If I want to play a shapeshifting hermit wielding the enchantment powers of the fey...well you know the rest by now.


----------



## Malmuria

They should get rid of experience points in the thousands and especially awarding xp for killing monsters.  It should be something like, 'you need three milestones for each level.  An example of a milestone is...'


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> They should get rid of experience points in the thousands and especially awarding xp for killing monsters.  It should be something like, 'you need three milestones for each level.  An example of a milestone is...'



Ugh. No thanks. If anything they should excise milestones.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> Ugh. No thanks. If anything they should excise milestones.



The amount of xp it takes to get to each level is very unintuitive and arbitrary-seeming, especially to new players.  You need 300 to get from level 1-2, but then 8000 to get from levels 5-6, and so on.  Meanwhile, xp for killing monsters is a skewed incentive.  On the DM side, calculating xp awards and budgets is a pain.

I'm also not a fan of just leveling up whenever the dm thinks it's a good idea.  Milestones as originally conceived are like single-digit xp points.  So something like, "you need 5 xp to level and you get 1 xp when you do x,y, or z."


----------



## tetrasodium

Malmuria said:


> The amount of xp it takes to get to each level is very unintuitive and arbitrary-seeming, especially to new players.  You need 300 to get from level 1-2, but then 8000 to get from levels 5-6, and so on.  Meanwhile, xp for killing monsters is a skewed incentive.  On the DM side, calculating xp awards and budgets is a pain.



it made a lot more sense in the past


Spoiler: 2e



*





*





Spoiler: 3.x



Level    XP
1st    0
2nd    1,000
3rd    3,000
4th    6,000
5th    10,000
6th    15,000
7th    21,000
8th    28,000
9th    36,000
10th    45,000
11th    55,000
12th    66,000
13th    78,000
14th    91,000
15th    105,000
16th    120,000
17th    136,000
18th    153,000
19th    171,000
20th    190,000



5e just has progression pulled from a hat & it needs to go in favor of better ways


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> Meanwhile, xp for killing monsters is a skewed incentive.



True, that's why you should give it for collecting treasure.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Except half of the classes get the equivalent of a long rest at the short rest.



How do you figure?


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> How do you figure?



I meant the classes that regain most of their abilities on a short rest as opposed to a long rest.


----------



## Remathilis

They should remove the haters.


----------



## Reynard

Remathilis said:


> They should remove the haters.



Who would be left to play?


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> I meant the classes that regain most of their abilities on a short rest as opposed to a long rest.



Of course, “most of their abilities” is a great deal less for those classes than it is for others. Take the warlock. With two spell slots until late game, and two encounters expected between short rests, the warlock should be able to cast about one leveled spell per encounter.

Again, taking frequent short rests to top off on resources is how they’re intended to be used.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Of course, “most of their abilities” is a great deal less for those classes than it is for others. Take the warlock. With two spell slots until late game, and two encounters expected between short rests, the warlock should be able to cast about one leveled spell per encounter.
> 
> Again, taking frequent long rests to top off on resources is how they’re intended to be used.



I assume you meant short, but still I would rather see the whole system go away.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> I assume you meant short,



Oops! Yes, I did. Fixed.


Reynard said:


> but still I would rather see the whole system go away.



Well, I hope WotC doesn’t feel the same way.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Certain positions of privilege in the core rules.

If the multiverse is the default setting, do a better job of giving non-Realms examples. Especially Realms specific bullsh*t like "The Weave" that new players mistake for rules jargon.

The segregation of races into Tolkein fanservice "common races", and everything else as "uncommon". Stab it repeatedly, burn the body, and piss on its' ashes.


----------



## tetrasodium

Charlaquin said:


> Of course, “most of their abilities” is a great deal less for those classes than it is for others. Take the warlock. With two spell slots until late game, and two encounters expected between short rests, the warlock should be able to cast about one leveled spell per encounter.
> 
> Again, taking frequent short rests to top off on resources is how they’re intended to be used.



You sure about that?  it starts breaking down in tier2 & completely collapses tier3.  Take Level 10/11 warlock &wizard for example & compare the level 5 slots with a short rest every other encounter on a six to eight encounter day,  It doesn't stop there though because if you look at dmg283 a level 11 warlock's agonizing repelling blast is trivially an at will 4th or 5th level spell analog.


----------



## Charlaquin

tetrasodium said:


> You sure about that?  it starts breaking down in tier2 & completely collapses tier3.  Take Level 10/11 warlock &wizard for example & compare the level 5 slots with a short rest every other encounter on a six to eight encounter day,  It doesn't stop there though because if you look at dmg283 a level 11 warlock's agonizing repelling blast is trivially an at will 4th or 5th level spell analog.



Balance starts to get wonky for everyone past level 10, but yeah. One sixth level spell per day and roughly one 5th level spell per encounter compared to other casters getting 1 6th level spell, 2 5th level spells, 3 each of 4th, 2nd, and 3rd level spells, and 4 1st level spells per day at least. More than that really, thanks to features like Arcane/Natural Recovery, Flexible Casting, etc. Warlocks get such a strong cantrip to compensate for their inability to nova.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Reynard said:


> What should 1D&D remove




*Snarf*: Reynard, your mission is to proceed to Renton, Washington. Pick up Jeremy Crawford's tweets about the playtest, read them and learn what you can along the way. When you find the the location of the writers of D&D One, infiltrate that team by whatever means available and terminate the Bards and Elves.

*Reynard*: Terminate the Bards and Elves?

*Snarf *: The D&D One design team is out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And they are probably thinking of ways to make Bards more powerful and make more Elf subraces. Terminate the bards and the elves ...  with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Blue

I want to remove DMs needing to run more than 1-3 encounters per day if they don't want to while still keeping the at-will and long-rest-recovery classes balanced against each other.


----------



## Reynard

Snarf Zagyg said:


> *Snarf*: Reynard, your mission is to proceed to Renton, Washington. Pick up Jeremy Crawford's tweets about the playtest, read them and learn what you can along the way. When you find the the location of the writers of D&D One, infiltrate that team by whatever means available and terminate the Bards and Elves.
> 
> *Reynard*: Terminate the Bards and Elves?
> 
> *Snarf *: The D&D One design team is out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And they are probably thinking of ways to make Bards more powerful and make more Elf subraces. Terminate the bards and the elves ...  with extreme prejudice.



That's a weird way to spell "gnomes."


----------



## Reynard

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Certain positions of privilege in the core rules.
> 
> If the multiverse is the default setting, do a better job of giving non-Realms examples. Especially Realms specific bullsh*t like "The Weave" that new players mistake for rules jargon.
> 
> The segregation of races into Tolkein fanservice "common races", and everything else as "uncommon". Stab it repeatedly, burn the body, and piss on its' ashes.



If it were up to me I would want all reference to any world -- and especially the "D&D multiverse" -- excised from the core books. D&D is, to me, a tool kit for creating your own fantasy adventures and does not need setting info or lore baked in. The DMG could certainly include some examples in the world building section, though.


----------



## Reynard

Another thing I would excise if it were possible is the sense of player entitlement to every option presented, regardless of appropriateness to the campaign or setting in particular. No, Bob, you can't play a flying angel cat in our gritty medieval dark fantasy game.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Certain positions of privilege in the core rules.
> 
> If the multiverse is the default setting, do a better job of giving non-Realms examples. Especially Realms specific bullsh*t like "The Weave" that new players mistake for rules jargon.



At least give the Serpent (a _much_ cooler take on the idea) equal time.


----------



## Amrûnril

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Certain positions of privilege in the core rules.
> 
> If the multiverse is the default setting, do a better job of giving non-Realms examples. Especially Realms specific bullsh*t like "The Weave" that new players mistake for rules jargon.




I'd argue the idea of "_the _multiverse" needs to be excised just as badly as the Forgotten Realms focus. Let individual settings stand on their own rather than treating them as subparts of some larger setting.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> Another thing I would excise if it were possible is the sense of player entitlement to every option presented, regardless of appropriateness to the campaign or setting in particular. No, Bob, you can't play a flying angel cat in our gritty medieval dark fantasy game.




My flying cat (?) angel is also a bard:


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> My flying cat (?) angel is also a bard:



My theory is that the ink used in illuminating manuscripts was made from hallucinogenic plants.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Okay. Excised is a rough one. 

I can see taking various races I don't like and moving them from the PHB to secondary material
I actively advocate that the upper tiers should be removed from the main game and possibly split into 2+ versions (one for people that want to play magicless martials all the way through alongside casters with matching power levels; another for people who want _wish _and _simulacrum _and s_hapechange _alongside fighters who wrestle death into submission or who lop-off and throw mountaintops at their enemies)
I think Multiclassing rules (alongside being redesigned) need to get thrown into the DMG, after the other (more important) optional rules like alternate combat actions and gritty rest variants and the like. 
I want XP-for-combat to be included only alongside equally developed rules for xp-for-treasure-found and xp-for-goal-progress and xp-for-character-arcs-fulfilled or the like.
I would like some of the basic worldbuilding/implied setting of D&D made more optional (not just the FR default they've been doing, I mean things like 'you don't have to have elemental planes or the Astral in your game. The afterlife might be a place you can walk to. Make your world your own' kind of advice).
I would like any number of trap options (_True Strike_ and _Witch Bolt_, Berserker Barbarians) and optimal options (_simulacrum _and _force cage_, crossbow expert/PAM, multiclassing your way through the charisma classes) rebalanced such that there weren't clear and away winners or losers. 
Still, I can't think of many things I want truly excised. Ooh! Studded leather, hide, and ring mail! Maybe 'half-plate' too (although maybe this just gets reframed as one of the many types that came about before full harness. There are lovely armors not included in the game like gambesons, buff coats, linothorax, and all those other lovely intermediate armors with plates like coat of plate, jack of plate, brigandine, and so on.


----------



## tetrasodium

Charlaquin said:


> Balance starts to get wonky for everyone past level 10, but yeah. One sixth level spell per day and roughly one 5th level spell per encounter compared to other casters getting 1 6th level spell, 2 5th level spells, 3 each of 4th, 2nd, and 3rd level spells, and 4 1st level spells per day at least. More than that really, thanks to features like Arcane/Natural Recovery, Flexible Casting, etc. Warlocks get such a strong cantrip to compensate for their inability to nova.



That's the theory but it doesn't work that way.  It starts breaking down well before tier3. The trouble is that some spells are better than they should be & as a result scale freely for warlock while eldritch blast with invocations has math tuned to the assumption that warlock will never get _any_ short rests except in practice it tends to be much closer to _almost_ every fight.  Ironically the very arcane/natural recovery features you note show the thoughtful & reasoned vrs munchkin fulfilment design split in their once per long rest  across from every short rest per long rest.  Thanks to _cumulative_ slot accumulation rate slowdowns at levels 2->3 /6->7 /7->8/10->11 combined with those "intentionally overtuned" spells you wind up with a situation where having lots of lower level slots is of almost no value & a lack of slot gains in spell levels that might matter a little at levels they _should_ have been gained.


----------



## Charlaquin

tetrasodium said:


> That's the theory but it doesn't work that way.  It starts breaking down well before tier3. The trouble is that some spells are better than they should be & as a result scale freely for warlock



And some spells remain effective even without upcasting. Ultimately how effective warlocks end up being compared to other casters varies from table to table, but I think the common consensus is they trend a little on the weak side.


tetrasodium said:


> while eldritch blast with invocations has math tuned to the assumption that warlock will never get _any_ short rests



That’s just not the case. Eldritch Blast is tuned like a Fighter with a heavy crossbow and no additional resource expenditure (such as action surge or superiority dice). It’s strong for a cantrip, yes, but it is definitely not tuned to be the Warlock’s only source of damage.


tetrasodium said:


> except in practice it tends to be much closer to _almost_ every fight.



YMMV. If this is the case at your table, yeah, warlocks are going to be about twice as strong as expected. If you get fewer then one short rest every other encounter, warlocks will be weaker. This is also the case with every other caster with the frequency of long rests. Turns out, resting as a limitation of power can become unbalanced pretty easily if the actual frequency of rests doesn’t end up meeting the expectation.


----------



## Reynard

Also, can we get rid of "spirit" familiars and actually have cats and imps and stuff again. The same for any mount or pet actually: it doesn't need to be a pokemon. it can be an actual creature.


----------



## tetrasodium

Charlaquin said:


> And some spells remain effective even without upcasting. Ultimately how effective warlocks end up being compared to other casters varies from table to table, but I think the common consensus is they trend a little on the weak side.
> 
> That’s just not the case. Eldritch Blast is tuned like a Fighter with a heavy crossbow and no additional resource expenditure (such as action surge or superiority dice). It’s strong for a cantrip, yes, but it is definitely not tuned to be the Warlock’s only source of damage.



It very much is average for a d10 is 5.5, agonizing gives +5 with 20 charisma averaging to an extra d10 worth. .  The dmg 284 table has:
1st 1d10
2nd 2d10 Level 1-4 agonizing blast is here (1d10+an effective second 1d10)
3rd 3d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 5 foot knockback on top
4th  4d10 Level  5-10 agonizing blast is here. (2d10+an effective second 2d10)
5th 5d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 10 foot knockback on top
6th 6d10  Level 11-16 agonizing blast is here. (3d10+an effective second 3d10)
7th 11d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 15 foot knockback on top
8th 12d10  Level 17+agonizing blast is here. (4d10+an effective second 4d10)
9th 15d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 20 foot knockback  on top
Eldritch blast is very much not the equivalent to a heavy crossbow because a heavy crossbow has the loading property, does not deal force damage, does not  have a knockback, & does not scale the fighter extra attack based on character level like EB.




Charlaquin said:


> YMMV.* If* this is the case at your table, yeah, warlocks are going to be about twice as strong as expected. *If *you get fewer then one short rest every other encounter, warlocks will be weaker. This is also the case with every other caster with the frequency of long rests. Turns out, resting as a limitation of power can become unbalanced pretty easily if the actual frequency of rests doesn’t end up meeting the expectation.



That's a _lot_ of ifs balanced around "your the gm, you fix it & you figure out where it needs to be & you make it work" piled on a GM by d&d5e.   With the system structured mechanically to almost guarantee that players can successfully rest without gm fiat simply disallowing it things are almost certain to swing in a direction where short rest classes are problematically overly good


----------



## Lanefan

Malmuria said:


> The amount of xp it takes to get to each level is very unintuitive and arbitrary-seeming, especially to new players.  You need 300 to get from level 1-2, but then 8000 to get from levels 5-6, and so on.  Meanwhile, xp for killing monsters is a skewed incentive.  On the DM side, calculating xp awards and budgets is a pain.
> 
> I'm also not a fan of just leveling up whenever the dm thinks it's a good idea.  Milestones as originally conceived are like single-digit xp points.  So something like, "you need 5 xp to level and you get 1 xp when you do x,y, or z."



Milestones only work if the player/PCs follow the path that leads them from one milestone to the next.  Fine for hard-line adventure paths, I suppose, but hardly a useful model for anything more free-form or sandbox-y.

Worse - FAR worse, IMO - is that they're a group thing, meaning they don't reward individual risk-taking or initiative or anything like that, while overly rewarding those who hang back and let others take the risk.

Kill 'em.  Kill 'em dead.


----------



## Lanefan

What I'd like to see excised: Inspiration, and any other similar purely-meta mechanics that have nothing to do with reflecting and-or presenting the fiction.  

In its place, put a _strongly_-worded note in the DMG to the effect that xp and other character rewards are to be earned only by the characters in the setting through their actions, not by the players at the table through their bribes or lucky rolls.


----------



## tetrasodium

Lanefan said:


> In its place, put a _strongly_-worded note in the DMG to the effect that xp and other character rewards are to be earned only by the characters in the setting through their actions, not by the players at the table through their bribes or lucky rolls.



That kind of thing would actually be useful in the PHB too.  Thanks to so many players being exposed to d&d through AL there is a very strong expectation of "I get what everyone else gets even if I skip or show up late"  & it's even worse with "I showed up on time so get what everyone gets".  It's annoying needing to reduce the total exp &pretend that I'm not doing that with "bonus exp".  Worse still is that I start getting salty players & pushback when observer type players who avoid involvement & risk start falling further & further behind over the course of several+ months


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Lanefan said:


> not by the players at the table through their bribes



What?! NO!

Its way better if my players cling to the hope of bribing me to appease my wrath with chips and pretty eyes!


----------



## delericho

Alignment. At some point, it will be pointed out that trying to provide a universal definition of 'good' and 'evil' is problematic; might as well get ahead of the curve.

Encumbrance. Tracking of mundane ammunition. Tracking of rations. For all of these things, the rules provide the merest of nods, which are essentially useless as-is, but also provide inertia that the DM needs to fight against if they want to change.

XP budgets for encounter building. Indeed, they should divorce the amount of XP gained from defeating an encounter from the budget used to build it - that way, once the players become more experienced DMs can build tougher encounters without speeding up progression.


----------



## Charlaquin

tetrasodium said:


> It very much is average for a d10 is 5.5, agonizing gives +5 with 20 charisma averaging to an extra d10 worth. .  The dmg 284 table has:
> 1st 1d10
> 2nd 2d10 Level 1-4 agonizing blast is here (1d10+an effective second 1d10)
> 3rd 3d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 5 foot knockback on top
> 4th  4d10 Level  5-10 agonizing blast is here. (2d10+an effective second 2d10)
> 5th 5d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 10 foot knockback on top
> 6th 6d10  Level 11-16 agonizing blast is here. (3d10+an effective second 3d10)
> 7th 11d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 15 foot knockback on top
> 8th 12d10  Level 17+agonizing blast is here. (4d10+an effective second 4d10)
> 9th 15d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 20 foot knockback  on top
> Eldritch blast is very much not the equivalent to a heavy crossbow because a heavy crossbow has the loading property, does not deal force damage, does not  have a knockback, & does not scale the fighter extra attack based on character level like EB.



You’re comparing to the damage for environmental hazards, not to PC at-will attacks. No doubt EB is a strong cantrip, but Warlocks are by no means DPS leaders with EB alone.


tetrasodium said:


> That's a _lot_ of ifs balanced around "your the gm, you fix it & you figure out where it needs to be & you make it work" piled on a GM by d&d5e.   With the system structured mechanically to almost guarantee that players can successfully rest without gm fiat simply disallowing it things are almost certain to swing in a direction where short rest classes are problematically overly good



You’re definitely the first person I’ve seen complain that short rest classes are _over_powered.


----------



## HammerMan

tetrasodium said:


> An entire chapter on character creation (ch1) that do not mention consulting the DM, setting adherence or working in collaboration with the other players until a player has a fully completed character ready for _you_ to tell  _your_ story.



I think the 1st thing character creation should say is that this is all for the default FR setting and some games will restrict some options


----------



## Malmuria

Lanefan said:


> Milestones only work if the player/PCs follow the path that leads them from one milestone to the next.  Fine for hard-line adventure paths, I suppose, but hardly a useful model for anything more free-form or sandbox-y.
> 
> Worse - FAR worse, IMO - is that they're a group thing, meaning they don't reward individual risk-taking or initiative or anything like that, while overly rewarding those who hang back and let others take the risk.
> 
> Kill 'em.  Kill 'em dead.



 Here's how I'm currently doing it (playing an OSR game, not 5e)

Group
Major discovery: explore a new and dangerous location, find a rare treasure, make a definitive ally or enemy, confirm the veracity of rumors
Minor discovery: explore safe location, make some money, chat with locals, hear rumors

Individual (once per session)
Invoke character background in some way
Further a personal goal or objective


----------



## Stalker0

Completely remove Verbal and somatic spell components. They have long lived past their usefulness. Instead just assume that there are 3 ways to disable spellcasting.

1) Inside silence.
2) Their hands and/or mouth is bound
3) They cannot access their arcane focus or spell component pouch.

And then if a spell ignores these restrictions, specifically note it as a 'big deal" in the spell itself. These removes all the weirdness with paladins and shields, having to look up components on various spells, how it interacts with ABC, etc. Its all streamlined and simplified.


----------



## Reynard

Stalker0 said:


> Completely remove Verbal and somatic spell components. They have long lived past their usefulness. Instead just assume that there are 3 ways to disable spellcasting.
> 
> 1) Inside silence.
> 2) Their hands and/or mouth is bound
> 3) They cannot access their arcane focus or spell component pouch.
> 
> And then if a spell ignores these restrictions, specifically note it as a 'big deal" in the spell itself. These removes all the weirdness with paladins and shields, having to look up components on various spells, how it interacts with ABC, etc. Its all streamlined and simplified.



That's not the most important part of verbal components. The most important part is that it makes real, loud noise.


----------



## jasper

Reynard said:


> Ugh. No thanks. If anything they should excise milestones.



yes very american. Needs to be Kilometerstones.

Also my group needs excised. We 10 to 50 pounds overweight.


----------



## Stalker0

Reynard said:


> That's not the most important part of verbal components. The most important part is that it makes real, loud noise.



The way I would fix that to remove all of this confusion around "how stealthy can I be with spells".

You just need a simple "Concealed: Yes/no" option for each spell, or just assume the answer is no unless the spell specifically says it is concealable. Classic one....Charm Person. Can a player conceal they are casting it? some people say yes, some say no. Some say S and V components are loud and obvious, others say you can whisper the words and wiggle your fingers behind a cloak.

Drop all the confusion. If concealed is NO: the spell is as obvious as the sunrise, no way you can stealth with it. If its yes, its limited components or just plain "not obviously magical" but it allows you to conceal your casting. Done, simple and clean.


----------



## Lanefan

delericho said:


> Alignment. At some point, it will be pointed out that trying to provide a universal definition of 'good' and 'evil' is problematic; might as well get ahead of the curve.
> 
> Encumbrance. Tracking of mundane ammunition. Tracking of rations. For all of these things, the rules provide the merest of nods, which are essentially useless as-is, but also provide inertia that the DM needs to fight against if they want to change.



I'd rather they lean harder into both of these elements, personally. 


delericho said:


> XP budgets for encounter building. Indeed, they should divorce the amount of XP gained from defeating an encounter from the budget used to build it - that way, once the players become more experienced DMs can build tougher encounters without speeding up progression.



Indeed.

Encounter-building guidelines in general are of very limited use IMO, in that what's a tough encounter for one party might be a cakewalk for another, all dependent on a bunch of factors the designers can't control e.g. the species/class makeup of the party, the size of the party, the approach the players/PCs decide to take in the moment, etc.

Trying to approach it from the angle "I want the PCs to earn 600 xp in total, what can I throw at them to achieve this" is to me a bass-ackwards. way of doing it.


----------



## Lanefan

Malmuria said:


> Here's how I'm currently doing it (playing an OSR game, not 5e)
> 
> Group
> Major discovery: explore a new and dangerous location, find a rare treasure, make a definitive ally or enemy, confirm the veracity of rumors
> Minor discovery: explore safe location, make some money, chat with locals, hear rumors
> 
> Individual (once per session)
> Invoke character background in some way
> Further a personal goal or objective



Fine, but if - as is IME very often the case - it's one character (or a few among several) pulling the group along in those group activities, that character IMO deserves more reward than those others who are just along for the ride.  For example, hearing and verifying rumours while chatting with the locals might be something the party's Rogue and Wizard see to while the Cleric and Fighter stay put in the hotel room: why should the C and F get any xp for something they didn't do?


----------



## Reynard

Stalker0 said:


> Some say S and V components are loud and obvious, others say you can whisper the words and wiggle your fingers behind a cloak.



Not if you actually read the rules. I swear half the "debates" that exist are literally because people refuse to read the book. It's maddening.


----------



## Lanefan

Stalker0 said:


> Completely remove Verbal and somatic spell components. They have long lived past their usefulness. Instead just assume that there are 3 ways to disable spellcasting.
> 
> 1) Inside silence.
> 2) Their hands and/or mouth is bound
> 3) They cannot access their arcane focus or spell component pouch.
> 
> And then if a spell ignores these restrictions, specifically note it as a 'big deal" in the spell itself. These removes all the weirdness with paladins and shields, having to look up components on various spells, how it interacts with ABC, etc. Its all streamlined and simplified.



If those are the guidelines then interrupting a spell in mid-casting becomes nearly impossible unless you can put the caster into silence or completely incapacitate her.  One of the biggest problems that makes casters all-powerful is that they can't be interrupted.

Change 2 to read "Their normal movement and-or speech is restricted in any way whatsoever" and you're on to something.

That said, the advantage of a simple VSM listing is it fits nicely as shorthand on a one-line-per short list of spells, which is very handy if just looking up the basics such as range, duration, etc.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> Not if you actually read the rules. I swear half the "debates" that exist are literally because people refuse to read the book. It's maddening.



I agree that is often a culprit, especially with players wanting to debate, but phb203's verbal section  hardly imparts  the level of clarity you seem to be implying implying


Spoiler: verbal



Verbal(V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The
words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power;
rather, the particular com bination of sounds, with
specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic
in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area
of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t
cast a spell with a verbal component.


----------



## Malmuria

Lanefan said:


> Fine, but if - as is IME very often the case - it's one character (or a few among several) pulling the group along in those group activities, that character IMO deserves more reward than those others who are just along for the ride.  For example, hearing and verifying rumours while chatting with the locals might be something the party's Rogue and Wizard see to while the Cleric and Fighter stay put in the hotel room: why should the C and F get any xp for something they didn't do?



Admittedly I haven't played with these rules for very long; they are substitution for gold-for-xp rules in the game I'm using (Whitehack 3e).  The problem you describe is not one I've run into in general, as the group tends to do things...as a group.  Individual xp triggers (lots of games use them) are subject to potential player abuse, but I don't have players like that.

With regards to 5e, I think there could be a more elegant solution to xp than the one they have now, and a solution that corresponds to the goals of the game.  For better or for worse, my impression is that 5e, especially in the published adventures, is firmly lodged in the adventure path tradition, and so awarding milestones or levels for completing "story arcs" makes sense in that case.


----------



## Yaarel

It is extremely important to get rid of spells that suck.


----------



## Lanefan

Malmuria said:


> Admittedly I haven't played with these rules for very long; they are substitution for gold-for-xp rules in the game I'm using (Whitehack 3e).  The problem you describe is not one I've run into in general, as the group tends to do things...as a group.



Both as player and DM, I run into it all the time.

Part of the reason is that we generally tend to have larger parties, where splitting up and-or leaving behind those characters who aren't cut out for a given task just makes sense, as per my example above where two talky characters go out to check the scuttlebutt while the two non-takines stay put. (though here it'd be three talkies go in different directions, while two others stay in the hotel room and two more go downstairs to the hotel tavern and probably start a fight there  )

That, and there's a few in our crew who are generally quite content with hanging back and leave the driving - and risk-taking - to others.


Malmuria said:


> Individual xp triggers (lots of games use them) are subject to potential player abuse, but I don't have players like that.



If the triggers are obvious and participation-based (at the PC level), it's hard to abuse them.  If your PC gets involved, it gets xp.  If it's not there, or is there but does nothing, then no xp.  This goes for combat, exploration, talking, all that stuff. (and yes, it does mean I-as-DM have to track who gets involved in each encounter, but that's no big deal...at least until after the first few beer...) 


Malmuria said:


> With regards to 5e, I think there could be a more elegant solution to xp than the one they have now, and a solution that corresponds to the goals of the game.  For better or for worse, my impression is that 5e, especially in the published adventures, is firmly lodged in the adventure path tradition, and so awarding milestones or levels for completing "story arcs" makes sense in that case.



Yeah, APs sell and so that's the style of play they promote; though in fairness I don't think this playstyle promotion is necessarily as intentional as it might sometimes look.


----------



## Greg K

A Default Setting whether Forgotten Realms or anything else
Levels 13-20
7th to 9th level spells
Darkvision (current version): go back to 3e low-light vision and darkvision
Ardlings: replace with Aasamir and Deva
PC Immunities: replace with advantage
Inspiration on natural 20
Spell Component Pouches
Several spells including, but not limited to Floating Disk, Goodberry, Guiding Bolt, Rope Trick, Tiny Hut
Bags of Holding
The current design team: move them to MtG or setting design.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yaarel said:


> It is extremely important to get rid of spells that suck.



I'd be more in favor of remaking them to be better instead of getting rid of them. True Strike does not need to be bad, it can be made to be useful (like a +10 to hit roll for the first attack of your next turn, concentration). Bark skin could be useful (medium armor equivalent, no concentration), Stone skin is the same (4d10 THP + 2 AC while the THP remain, no concentration, no consumed components), etc

Just removing them because the designers fumbled them the first time would be a lost.


----------



## Greg K

Maxperson said:


> Yeah. I've never seen it used.  About the only use for it that I can see is if you are trying to make a shot with a crossbow that has a rope tied to it and you really want to land it so you can cross the chasm.  Cast Truestrike, aim, next round roll with advantage. Those kinds of situations, which don't happen often enough to make it worth taking.



I prefer making  True Strike a first level spell that makes the next attack an automatic success, but does not crit.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Remove VSM from spells. Just mark core assumptions (cannot cast if grappled/blinded), specific spells are LOUD or STEALTHY, etc.
Remove multiclassing-dips. You can have _one_ secondary class, and it won't give you all its stuff front-loaded.
Either every race gets subraces, or elves lose their special permissions.
Remove darkvision spam, oh my god.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I am so sick of explaining how off-handed attacks don't include the ability score modifier on damage to brand new players who are already struggling with having separate "to hit" and "damage" bonuses. I am also sick of writing out a second entry under weapon attacks for weapons when used offhanded. I'm also sick of my characters who actually benefit from two weapon fighting (Barbarians and Rogues) being the ones who have to have the nerfed version of it.

Make ability score bonus to damage on offhand attacks the default. Have the fighting style buff it up in some way to keep it a little more viable for the Fighters and Rangers who don't benefit much from it otherwise. Keep everyone from using two-weapon fighting all the time by making sure everyone has other worthwhile uses for their bonus action.

Alternatively just get rid of two-weapon fighting, or lock it entirely behind the fighting style or a feat or whatever. I'm just sick of the system where the characters for whom it actually makes sense have a needlessly complex and weak version of it.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Reynard said:


> Not if you actually read the rules. I swear half the "debates" that exist are literally because people refuse to read the book. It's maddening.



I agree with that in general, but in the specific matter of verbal and somatic components the rules are purposely pretty vague.


----------



## d24454_modern

Ability Caps.

I hate how 5e only let us go to 20 with Ability Scores. Next thing you know they’ll get rid of levels too.

The Whole point of milestone leveling is that people achieve more for less work. (Well, it’s also for story tension but mostly the less work part.) If they’re required to do actions in order to level up, then that defeats the point.


----------



## Azzy

tetrasodium said:


> it made a lot more sense in the past
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 2e
> 
> 
> 
> *View attachment 259187*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3.x
> 
> 
> 
> Level    XP
> 1st    0
> 2nd    1,000
> 3rd    3,000
> 4th    6,000
> 5th    10,000
> 6th    15,000
> 7th    21,000
> 8th    28,000
> 9th    36,000
> 10th    45,000
> 11th    55,000
> 12th    66,000
> 13th    78,000
> 14th    91,000
> 15th    105,000
> 16th    120,000
> 17th    136,000
> 18th    153,000
> 19th    171,000
> 20th    190,000
> 
> 
> 
> 5e just has progression pulled from a hat & it needs to go in favor of better ways



No, it didn't. 5e's progression was specifically tailored to extend what are seen as the "fun levels" while making the other levels go by quicker. It may not be to your liking, but it's a reasonable design.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Benjamin Olson said:


> I am so sick of explaining how off-handed attacks don't include the ability score modifier on damage to brand new players who are already struggling with having separate "to hit" and "damage" bonuses. I am also sick of writing out a second entry under weapon attacks for weapons when used offhanded. I'm also sick of my characters who actually benefit from two weapon fighting (Barbarians and Rogues) being the ones who have to have the nerfed version of it.
> 
> Make ability score bonus to damage on offhand attacks the default. Have the fighting style buff it up in some way to keep it a little more viable for the Fighters and Rangers who don't benefit much from it otherwise. Keep everyone from using two-weapon fighting all the time by making sure everyone has other worthwhile uses for their bonus action.
> 
> Alternatively just get rid of two-weapon fighting, or lock it entirely behind the fighting style or a feat or whatever. I'm just sick of the system where the characters for whom it actually makes sense have a needlessly complex and weak version of it.



You know, I make it the opposite: does not require a Bonus Action, but you still dont add your ability bonus.

Keeping your idea, the Fighting Style should be replace by the Dual-Wielder feat anyway. Its crap has feat, but as a FS it might be good. And create a better feat for those who want to master dual-wielding ( A second off-hand attack? Two-attacks on AoO? some things like that)


----------



## Azzy

Get rid of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

Get rid of spell components.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

ReshiIRE said:


> Example: True Strike. The spell is actively a bad idea in 5e for a wide variety of reasons; I don't see how you could rework it to work in 5e without making it ridiculous.



The problem is less that True Strike is never a good option, but more that it sounds like a generally useful spell that then turns out to have only limited use cases, and known cantrips are a pretty precious commodity.

And the particulars eliminate much of the edge case use it would have. It could be a solid alternative to the dodge action when you have a round where there is just nothing you can contribute, but it requires you to see the specific enemy, which eliminates most of those instances. It could pair well with various abilities to still make an attack despite casting a cantrip or to weaponize a reaction, but nope, it has to be an attack on the next turn. And of course, you have to give up concentration on anything else to use it.

It is simply the advantage/disadvantage mechanic run amok. They should have just made it a level one spell giving a large flat bonus like in 3.5/Pathfinder, but they poached that mechanic for the War Cleric channel divinity.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Tales and Chronicles said:


> You know, I make it the opposite: does not require a Bonus Action, but you still dont add your ability bonus.
> 
> Keeping your idea, the Fighting Style should be replace by the Dual-Wielder feat anyway. Its crap has feat, but as a FS it might be good. And create a better feat for those who want to master dual-wielding ( A second off-hand attack? Two-attacks on AoO? some things like that)



As long as they do something to streamline it I'd be fine. I don't really want to make it a super powerful option, but as is every brand new player who wants to roll up a dual dagger wielding rogue (one of the more common things new players want to roll up), gets thrown right in the thick of making sense of actions and bonus actions and understanding two different formulas for damage calculation just to get their character sheet set up properly.

Perhaps what makes the most sense is to make the default attacking with both weapons simultaneously (what many people are imagining anyway). If you hit with both you add both dice and the modifier. If you just hit with one you add the one die and modifier. And then it gets divorced from the whole bonus action thing, which made it not really work for the Ranger, despite Rangers being an iconically dual-wielding class to many people.


----------



## Reynard

Benjamin Olson said:


> I agree with that in general, but in the specific matter of verbal and somatic components the rules are purposely pretty vague.



I guess this is another example of me remembering a different edition rule...


----------



## Stalker0

Just make


Azzy said:


> Get rid of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
> 
> Get rid of spell components.



Amen, hell just get rid of those 3 types on weapons period. Its like the 6 saving throws, they don't come up enough to be worth the mechanics of putting them in the game.


----------



## tetrasodium

Stunning strike.  It's basically a spammable  save or lose+complete disable with a subtrivial cost that can be trivially replenished even if soammed too much.  Neat idea sure, but terrible execution


----------



## Branduil

I would like to see powerhouse feats like Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master etc. removed from the feat list and moved to being subclass options. In general I'd like to see feats become more about diversifying and rounding out your character, instead of being must-haves for certain kinds of combat.


----------



## DeviousQuail

The armor table. Just burn it to the ground and start over. Okay, not that extreme but there should be tradeoffs not just between light, medium, and heavy armors. Tradeoffs should exist within each type as well. Medium armors do a much better job of this compared to light and heavy.

Remove most of the combat feats and instead make parts of them features for warrior classes similar to fighting styles. Classes could get additional ones as they level. Leave feats for fun, flavorful, and far-out stuff.


----------



## DeviousQuail

Branduil said:


> I would like to see powerhouse feats like Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master etc. removed from the feat list and moved to being subclass options. In general I'd like to see feats become more about diversifying and rounding out your character, instead of being must-haves for certain kinds of combat.



I feel like I just got ninja'd but you put it much better than I did so I'm not even mad.


----------



## Branduil

DeviousQuail said:


> The armor table. Just burn it to the ground and start over. Okay, not that extreme but there should be tradeoffs not just between light, medium, and heavy armors. Tradeoffs should exist within each type as well. Medium armors do a much better job of this compared to light and heavy.
> 
> Remove most of the combat feats and instead make parts of them features for warrior classes similar to fighting styles. Classes could get additional ones as they level. Leave feats for fun, flavorful, and far-out stuff.



I would like them to overhaul Armor the way they did with Weapons-- divide Armor into Simple and Martial, make Light and Heavy tags which can apply in either category. It would also be nice if we got more historical kinds of armor like Brigandine, Lamellar, Mirror armor, etc. instead of nonsense D&D-isms like "studded leather" and "splint mail."


----------



## DND_Reborn

Azzy said:


> No, it didn't. 5e's progression was specifically tailored to extend what are seen as the "fun levels" while making the other levels go by quicker. It may not be to your liking, but it's a reasonable design.



Yet it had the opposite effect IME.

Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.

The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they _finally_ get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.

As to the OP, there is way too much stuff for me to even consider listing it all...


----------



## Benjamin Olson

tetrasodium said:


> Stunning strike.  It's basically a spammable  save or lose+complete disable with a subtrivial cost that can be trivially replenished even if soammed too much.  Neat idea sure, but terrible execution



The worst part is it is overpowered without actually being fun to a lot of Monk players. It's too good not to do, but it has about the lowest (or at least the least predictable) chance of success of any of the things they spend Ki on.


----------



## MockingBird

Get rid of the ardlings, just don't add then into a core book, a splat book they will fit right in


----------



## gametaku

Ability Scores and Ability Modifiers being different.  Supposedly this is confusing to new players. Instead, it should only be the ability modifier.   Point Buy and Standard Array can be modified, and for rolling the dice
options could be 1d8-4, 2d4 - 4, or 1d6 - 2 depending on the range of scores desired.

Races - it's long past time this happened. Maybe for compatibility have a note that old races could be used instead of whatever new option replaces them.

Hit Points - To many players and DM's think they represent purely physical damage.  Also, from various post characters are supposed to be killed and run away and that because less likely to happen as hit points are increased. 

Players - Really how many problems are caused by players existing.  Whether it's what they do or how the DM's interacts with the players, or WOTC putting out content players want to use.  Eliminating players fixes the vast majority of the issues D&D has.  And any it doesn't fix the DM can just create a new rule and not worry about the players would react.


----------



## Azzy

DND_Reborn said:


> Yet it had the opposite effect IME.
> 
> Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.
> 
> The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they _finally_ get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.
> 
> As to the OP, there is way too much stuff for me to even consider listing it all...



YMMV, I'm just the messenger.


----------



## Li Shenron

Remathilis said:


> They should remove the haters.



Actually... they will!

If you keep playing 5e, you can bet all those people will move onto hating 6e and not bother you anymore


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Stalker0 said:


> Amen, hell just get rid of those 3 types on weapons period. Its like the 6 saving throws, they don't come up enough to be worth the mechanics of putting them in the game.



And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.



Yup. Physical damage could be a general damage type for weapons. For skeletons and oozes, just add their very specific vulnerability in the entry of the relevant trait. 

Or, you know, make B/S/P actually relevant in more than 3 statblocks! 

and that's the same answer to most things in this thread: if its only pertinent 3% of the time, remove it or make it pertinent 33% of the time!

Charming spells could be moved to Charisma saves, forced movement spells could be moved to Strength saves, illusions and maze could be Intelligence saves instead of checks!


----------



## jasper

MockingBird said:


> Get rid of the ardlings, just don't add then into a core book, a splat book they will fit right in



momomom momm mom bird said the wordy dirty word dirt. a dirty word. "SPAT" send him to yard and make them play outside for 3 hours.


----------



## Reynard

Tales and Chronicles said:


> and that's the same answer to most things in this thread: if its only pertinent 3% of the time, remove it or make it pertinent 33% of the time!



I endorse this view.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Blue said:


> I want to remove DMs needing to run more than 1-3 encounters per day if they don't want to while still keeping the at-will and long-rest-recovery classes balanced against each other.



I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.


----------



## Reynard

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.



Maybe rests should be milestone based? That presumes an adventure with a plot, usually, but I think it would be possible to figure out a workable method for more sandboxy games. But instead of basing resource recovery on in fiction time -- the passage of which is going to vary depending on the kind of things happening in play -- maybe base them on game states. I know lots of folks won't like that because it is too "meta" but it is a possible solution.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> Maybe rests should be milestone based? That presumes an adventure with a plot, usually, but I think it would be possible to figure out a workable method for more sandboxy games. But instead of basing resource recovery on in fiction time -- the passage of which is going to vary depending on the kind of things happening in play -- maybe base them on game states. I know lots of folks won't like that because it is too "meta" but it is a possible solution.




That might be my least favorite thing in 13th Age....  :-/


----------



## Blue

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.



Respectfully, there are two very different aspects that need to be met by number of encounters per day, and if you are focused on one you might miss the other.

One of them is challenge.  And yes, you can have fewer, deadlier encounters and reach your goals for this.  This isn't really debated, and it's the primary - and sometimes only - one that most people think about.

The other one is balance between the at-will classes like rogue or the EB-focused warlock, and the long-rest recovery classes like full casters plus hybrids like the barbarian or the paladin.

If you took your average full caster and took away all slots, they would be less effective on average than at-will classes like the rogue.  At-will > cantrip.  (This doesn't include EB boosted with invocations.)

On the other hand, if you gave casters unlimited of their highest level slots, they would do more than at-will characters.  A fireball with multiple opponents, etc.  Slots of the highest few levels > at-will.

Putting them together, we get, in generic terms for the average character:

Slots of the highest few levels > at-will > cantrip

So in order to balance these, we need some number of spells cast using highest level slots, and some cantrips or low-impact spells (like 1st level offensive spells in T2+).  Some above and some below will average out to the same as an at-will.

Let's examine that.  If you run a few encounters and run the party's casters all the way out of spells - you are STILL not balancing the classes unless you also are forcing them to have a good number of rounds at less than at-will effectiveness.

An easy way to work this out is average effectiveness per action, over the course of the adventuring day.

Ah, so if you have fewer encounters, as long as the last as long as more encounters we're good, right?

Well, no.  It's moving in the right direction, but duration is a thing.  If an encounter is 3-4 rounds and you can a spell lasting 1 minute, you only get 3-4 rounds of it at most.  But if the combat lasts 9 rounds, then you are getting 2-3 times the effect from the same slot and the same action.  It's more powerful.  So you need to offset it with even more rounds of lower than at-will efficiency.

A easy way to see this is the barbarian.  Say you've got 3 rages per day.  Assuming the encounters total to the same deadliness, is there any case where you are worse off if you can rage for every encounter instead of half of them?  That's one of the things that decreasing the number of encounters does - allows duration effects to be even more powerful.

To sum up:

1. Can balance danger and challenge in fewer encounters by having tougher encounters.

2. Need to have more total rounds fighting in fewer encounters that all of the more encounters in order to maintain balance between classes.

And that second one does not often get met. Fewer encounters per day is usually fewer total rounds then if we did all of the encounters per day, and that definitely is mathematically biased in terms of the long-rest-recovery classes like casters as well as a big boost for hybrids like the barbarian and the paladin.


----------



## HammerMan

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.



And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.



Machete style chopping swords.


----------



## Cadence

HammerMan said:


> And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.



Machete like on one side, Estoc like on the other?

(1/2 Ninja's by @Reynard )


----------



## Aldarc

Six Saves
BIFTs
Orientalism from the Monk
Shield spell


----------



## Lanefan

DND_Reborn said:


> Yet it had the opposite effect IME.
> 
> Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.
> 
> The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they _finally_ get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.



If levelling is the main reason why people play this will always be a problem.

If players can somehow be made to see that levelling is merely a pleasant, occasional, and variably-timed side effect of the play they're otherwise enjoying anyway, it then doesn't matter how long it takes to get through any given level.

Not quite sure how to excise this idea that levelling is the primary goal of play, though.


----------



## billd91

Lanefan said:


> Fine, but if - as is IME very often the case - it's one character (or a few among several) pulling the group along in those group activities, that character IMO deserves more reward than those others who are just along for the ride.  For example, hearing and verifying rumours while chatting with the locals might be something the party's Rogue and Wizard see to while the Cleric and Fighter stay put in the hotel room: why should the C and F get any xp for something they didn't do?



In my experience, if this happens it’s because certain players are generally more active and willing to jump in than others and it happens no matter who/what their PCs are. In these cases, I’d reward the player with a beer or something.

So ultimately I’d excise using in-game mechanics to encourage/discourage out of game or personality-based dynamics.


----------



## Lanefan

billd91 said:


> In my experience, if this happens it’s because certain players are generally more active and willing to jump in than others and it happens no matter who/what their PCs are. In these cases, I’d reward the player with a beer or something.
> 
> So ultimately I’d excise using in-game mechanics to encourage/discourage out of game or personality-based dynamics.



I wouldn't, in that you're in theory playing your character rather than yourself; and if you want your character to be outspoken in the fiction then bloody well speak up in-character at the table.

As for rewarding the player with a beer - well, at least it's a meta-level reward for meta-level actions; but it doesn't answer the reward-amount vs in-character-action disparity, which is my bigger concern.

I mean, I'd love it if the DM gave me beers all the time but AFAIC it's my character doing stuff, not me, and thus it's the character who should get the reward (which, in most cases, is xp).


----------



## DND_Reborn

Lanefan said:


> *If levelling is the main reason why people play this will always be a problem.*



I agree, but this is a big factor in D&D for 5E, and has been since WotC took over IMO.

In AD&D, as I have often said, the game was about the _ADVENTURE_, not about the characters. Now, it seems more about what you get when you level, that is the reward for playing--not the adventure anymore. 



Lanefan said:


> If players can somehow be made to see that levelling is merely a pleasant, occasional, and variably-timed side effect of the play they're otherwise enjoying anyway, it then doesn't matter how long it takes to get through any given level.



When PCs (and classes) didn't have much in the way of features, it was easier than it is now. It's something I've noticed when I started playing 5E with new players.


----------



## Eltab

Things to excise?  Chaos Sorcerer.
The _Deck of Many Things_ is already known to be a campaign-destroying device because of overpowered / deathtrap results.  Making a PC who is a mobile _Deck_ (and unpredictable when it will erupt) should go into a "D&D Unchained"-like product at best, not into the Core Rulebooks.

There are better sorcerer subclasses available.  Pick one with intuitively obvious flavor (Elemental: Plane of Fire?) and put it in the PH instead.


----------



## Lanefan

Eltab said:


> Things to excise?  Chaos Sorcerer.
> The _Deck of Many Things_ is already known to be a campaign-destroying device because of overpowered / deathtrap results.



If that's the case then why do the players invariably - as in, every! time! - cheer with anticipation whenever one appears in the game?


Eltab said:


> Making a PC who is a mobile _Deck_ (and unpredictable when it will erupt) should go into a "D&D Unchained"-like product at best, not into the Core Rulebooks.



Or go the other way and make magic of any kind a little unpredictable and dangerous - maybe not to the extent that DCCRPG does it, but enough to keep characters aware that magic is dangerous stuff.

The game needs more chaos and unpredictbility, not less.


----------



## CleverNickName

I don't know about removing stuff from the game that others are clearly enjoying, but I will say this:  if they got rid of gnomes, sorcerers, and multiclassing, it could be years before my group noticed.


----------



## Mind of tempest

honestly, I want to get rid of the classic demihumans just to see what would replace them.


----------



## glass

Reynard said:


> I vote short rests. I hate them. I hate the way PCs want to take one after every encounter because they overspent their resources or tooka couple hits. Just give players a post battle tape up of their wounds and move on.



Removing them would be my second choice. My first choice would be to make them actually _short_.



Malmuria said:


> Meanwhile, xp for killing monsters is a skewed incentive.



True, but XP for killing monsters was excised 22 years ago. _EDIT: Although TBF I do not have a 5e DMG. Did they add it back?_



Tales and Chronicles said:


> What?! NO! Its way better if my players cling to the hope of bribing me to appease my wrath with chips and pretty eyes!



I kinda agree with the general sentiment, but if any of my players had pretty eyes I would rather they kept them in their heads rather than offering them to me as some kind of bribe. That sound messy!



Li Shenron said:


> If you keep playing 5e, you can bet all those people will move onto hating 6e and not bother you anymore



Didn't work that way with the last edition change, sadly.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

glass said:


> I kinda agree with the general sentiment, but if any of my players had pretty eyes I would rather they kept them in their heads rather than offering them to me as some kind of bribe. That sound messy!



but...but..but...they already gave me their soul and all their nails from their left hands! I gotta stay consistent in my devil's bargain.


----------



## Lanefan

glass said:


> *True, but XP for killing monsters was excised 22 years ago.* _EDIT: Although TBF I do not have a 5e DMG. Did they add it back?_



Where are you getting the bolded part from?  3e had xp for kills, as did 4e; the xp value for each monster is right there in its stat block.

Killing monsters still gives xp just like it always did.  Hell, in 5e the intent (if not always the reality) is that you use an encounter's net xp value as a difficulty guideline when designing it.


glass said:


> I kinda agree with the general sentiment, but if any of my players had pretty eyes I would rather they kept them in their heads rather than offering them to me as some kind of bribe. That sound messy!



Worst part is they can each only do it twice, tops. They'd better make those bribes count!


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Lanefan said:


> Worst part is they can each only do it twice, tops. They'd better make those bribes count!



Its a one time thing: its both eyes OR a bag of chips. 

Since most of them drive to my house, they kinda need their eyes, so I get to feast on multiple bags of chips each time! Win-Win!


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> Where are you getting the bolded part from?  3e had xp for kills, as did 4e; the xp value for each monster is right there in its stat block.
> 
> Killing monsters still gives xp just like it always did.  Hell, in 5e the intent (if not always the reality) is that you use an encounter's net xp value as a difficulty guideline when designing it.



Something something challenge...


----------



## billd91

glass said:


> True, but XP for killing monsters was excised 22 years ago. _EDIT: Although TBF I do not have a 5e DMG. Did they add it back?_



There are *no* D&D editions that excise gaining XP for killing monsters. Editions have emphasized other means of gaining XPs (gold, story, traps, etc) and have emphasized that they don’t strictly require giving the monsters dirt naps to get the XPs. But defeat monster -> XP has been a part of every edition.


----------



## Yaarel

Personally, I want to excise XP and milestones.

A solid method to advance to the next level, is simply to count the number of encounters.

An "encounter" might be lethal combat, nonlethal combat, social, or exploratory. As long as it feels genuinely challenging it counts toward the number of encounters to reach the next level.

For newbie players, counting encounters is simple.


----------



## R_J_K75

Classes: Keep them as is but I'd like to see an option to play a classless character similar to the 2E Skills & Powers. I dont think it would take too much trouble or space in the PHB to assign values to class features and rules for creating a character that can select features from multiple classes. Perhaps this can replace multiclasses.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I think given the way they are using unarmed attacks for grapples now they absolutely need to dump the oft forgotten and always terrible "action to unequip a shield rule". 

It really only adds some tiny amount of realism to the game for those imagining strapped to the arm shields (though none for those imagining center-grip shields). The cost it extracts is making shields terrible for most characters most of the time, and keeping those for whom they still make sense from being able to dynamically switch weapon sets during the battle.


----------



## glass

Lanefan said:


> Where are you getting the bolded part from? 3e had xp for kills, as did 4e; the xp value for each monster is right there in its stat block.



From every edition of D&D since 2000 (except possibly 5e - I have only played it not run it). The XP value of the monster is what you get for overcoming the challenge of that monster - how you over come that challenge is irrelevant: Sure killing it is one way, but you can also fight in non-lethally (to unconsciousness, surrender or rout), talk it down, sneak past it, challenge it to a bake-off....

However you do it, you get the XP. No killing required. QED.


----------



## delericho

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I want to excise XP and milestones.



I definitely _don't_ want to see XP excised. However...



Yaarel said:


> A solid method to advance to the next level, is simply to count the number of encounters.



We do essentially this for the main XP progression.

However, for each campaign I also define a "side dish" (to go with the Orc&Pie), typically associated with one or both of the Interaction and Exploration pillars. Completing the task associated with the side dish also gives out a smaller XP award, thus encouraging (but not requiring) players to interact with those bits of the system.

I've found that that is a good way of beefing up those pillars, and it does a good job of differentiating campaigns from one another. But it does require that XP stick around, and not just be replaced by either milestones or counting encounters.


----------



## delericho

Oh, I thought of another one: all references to real-world gods. These are already fairly minimal (largely some tables in an appendix in the PHB), but does also include a number of 'interloper' gods in FR and maybe other settings.

I'd be tempted to ask for a similar excision of real-world demons and devils, but I suspect that's a bridge too far.


----------



## CleverNickName

Reading through the last half-dozen pages of comments has made me very grateful that Wizards of the Coast isn't relying on this thread to direct the OneD&D project. 

Yikes.


----------



## AnotherGuy

CleverNickName said:


> Reading through the last half-dozen pages of comments has made me very grateful that Wizards of the Coast isn't relying on this thread to direct the OneD&D project.
> 
> Yikes.



I'm the opposite. The collective play experience in this thread with people that spend, alongside myself, as much time on a forum dedicated to our hobby mirrors closer to my own that those at WotC. It is why we have great products such as Level Up and Nixlords Monster Manuals. Plus I'd bet our forum members understand the word modular far better than the publishers.


----------



## Lanefan

glass said:


> From every edition of D&D since 2000 (except possibly 5e - I have only played it not run it). The XP value of the monster is what you get for overcoming the challenge of that monster - how you over come that challenge is irrelevant: Sure killing it is one way, but you can also fight in non-lethally (to unconsciousness, surrender or rout), talk it down, sneak past it, challenge it to a bake-off....
> 
> However you do it, you get the XP. No killing required. QED.



Ah.  In that case 1e worked the same - you got xp for defeating the challenge, but that could be by sneaking past it or killing it or bribing it or whatever.


----------



## Reynard

delericho said:


> I'd be tempted to ask for a similar excision of real-world demons and devils, but I suspect that's a bridge too far.



Real world demons and devils are just real world gods certain folks didn't much care for.


----------



## delericho

Reynard said:


> Real world demons and devils are just real world gods certain folks didn't much care for.



Of course. But given how ingrained some of them are into D&D's lore, I suspect the resistance to removing them would be very significant. That's probably less true to those labelled as deities.


----------



## beancounter

Yaarel said:


> A solid method to advance to the next level, is simply to count the number of encounters.
> 
> An "encounter" might be lethal combat, nonlethal combat, social, or exploratory. As long as it feels genuinely challenging it counts toward the number of encounters to reach the next level.



I like the idea, but "genuinely challenging" can be subjective. I would stick to just counting encounter, and not making a judgement call about challenge.


----------



## Lanefan

beancounter said:


> I like the idea, but "genuinely challenging" can be subjective. I would stick to just counting encounter, and not making a judgement call about challenge.



Shouldn't some encounters be worth more than others, though, based on (intended) difficulty, time and effort spent, and so forth?


----------



## Haplo781

Reynard said:


> I agree, except make it 11-20. Just compress the "playable" levels into 10 and lengthen the time it takes to _ding_ and, finally, make spell levels the same as character and class levels.



Then, for those of us who want more of a high fantasy feel, add "paragon" and "epic" characters with their own 1-10 progression, and optional rules to advance from the base 1-10 – let's call that "heroic" – up to paragon and from paragon to epic.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> This is the intended use of short rests. I mean, they should be roughly after every _other_ combat, but yeah. They’re intended as a post-battle top-off.



Reduce the time to 5 minutes, balance around them being available after every encounter.


----------



## Haplo781

tetrasodium said:


> It very much is average for a d10 is 5.5, agonizing gives +5 with 20 charisma averaging to an extra d10 worth. .  The dmg 284 table has:
> 1st 1d10
> 2nd 2d10 Level 1-4 agonizing blast is here (1d10+an effective second 1d10)
> 3rd 3d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 5 foot knockback on top
> 4th  4d10 Level  5-10 agonizing blast is here. (2d10+an effective second 2d10)
> 5th 5d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 10 foot knockback on top
> 6th 6d10  Level 11-16 agonizing blast is here. (3d10+an effective second 3d10)
> 7th 11d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 15 foot knockback on top
> 8th 12d10  Level 17+agonizing blast is here. (4d10+an effective second 4d10)
> 9th 15d10  add repelling & you probably get here for a 20 foot knockback  on top
> Eldritch blast is very much not the equivalent to a heavy crossbow because a heavy crossbow has the loading property, does not deal force damage, does not  have a knockback, & does not scale the fighter extra attack based on character level like EB.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a _lot_ of ifs balanced around "your the gm, you fix it & you figure out where it needs to be & you make it work" piled on a GM by d&d5e.   With the system structured mechanically to almost guarantee that players can successfully rest without gm fiat simply disallowing it things are almost certain to swing in a direction where short rest classes are problematically overly good



If Warlock is gonna be balanced around "you get 1 leveled spell per encounter and then you're spamming EB" then Agonizing should be built in.


----------



## tetrasodium

Haplo781 said:


> If Warlock is gonna be balanced around "you get 1 leveled spell per encounter and then you're spamming EB" then Agonizing should be built in.



Yes it should, but when it's very trivial for short rest classes to dig & bring it closer to 1-10 you get 2/encounter 11-16 3 per encounter 17+ 4 per encounter plus mystic arcanum plus no slot cost invocation spells plus agonizing repelling blast it becomes a problem because agonizing repelling is tuned more towards an expectation of "you get two per adventuring day" given non-pact slot cumulative slowdowns


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Reduce the time to 5 minutes, balance around them being available after every encounter.



I’d be in favor of that change, but I think it clearly isn’t going to happen in 1D&D.


----------



## beancounter

Lanefan said:


> Shouldn't some encounters be worth more than others, though, based on (intended) difficulty, time and effort spent, and so forth?



Yes, but for someone who wants to really simplify the process, I think Yaarel's idea is a good option.


----------



## Lanefan

beancounter said:


> Yes, but for someone who wants to really simplify the process, I think Yaarel's idea is a good option.



Sure, it could be.

My view, though, is that too much has already been sacrificed on the altar of simplification.


----------



## Reynard

Haplo781 said:


> Then, for those of us who want more of a high fantasy feel, add "paragon" and "epic" characters with their own 1-10 progression, and optional rules to advance from the base 1-10 – let's call that "heroic" – up to paragon and from paragon to epic.



That's a very good idea. If you create an "epic" character you don't have to fill out 10 levels of regular character,  just focus on the top tier normal stuff as a foundation. Nobody cares how many 1st level spell slots you have.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> I’d be in favor of that change, but I think it clearly isn’t going to happen in 1D&D.



It will if enough people ask for it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> It will if enough people ask for it.



I don’t think that’s how this playtest is going to work. But give it a try, I guess.


----------



## tetrasodium

Haplo781 said:


> It will if enough people ask for it.



If anything I'd expect short rests to go away, the term is almost as radioactive as at will/daily/encounter/universal powers to a lot of folks & wotc seems to be making changes to correct the mess it makes.  We might see a "quick break" activity that allows spending hit dice to accomplish limited things like spending hit dice but "5 minute short rests" is probably unlikely


----------



## Cadence

_Following up post #6._

1st level


----------



## Charlaquin

tetrasodium said:


> If anything I'd expect short rests to go away, the term is almost as radioactive as at will/daily/encounter/universal powers to a lot of folks & wotc seems to be making changes to correct the mess it makes.  We might see a "quick break" activity that allows spending hit dice to accomplish limited things like spending hit dice but "5 minute short rests" is probably unlikely



Again, short rests are definitely in and definitely still take an hour, as evidenced by the changes to long rests in the playtest.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Again, short rests are definitely in and definitely still take an hour, as evidenced by the changes to long rests in the playtest.



Yeah, in retrospect, the pro bonus is great for big effects but a nightmare to track for trivial things.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, in retrospect, the pro bonus is great for big effects but a nightmare to track for trivial things.



I think prof times between long rests is probably going to remain the primary model for limited-use “spell-like abilities.” But clearly short tests aren’t going away completely, or having their duration changed. I think they’ll mostly just be for spending hit dice, but there may yet be a few things that care about short rests. If nothing else I bet the bard’s Song of Rest stays the same, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they still regain Bardic Inspiration uses on a short rest. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that warlocks spell slots stay short rest recovery too.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> I think prof times between long rests is probably going to remain the primary model for limited-use “spell-like abilities.” But clearly short tests aren’t going away completely, or having their duration changed. I think they’ll mostly just be for spending hit dice, but there may yet be a few things that care about short rests. If nothing else I bet the bard’s Song of Rest stays the same, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they still regain Bardic Inspiration uses on a short rest. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that warlocks spell slots stay short rest recovery too.



I wonder if all casters should rely on short rests for their spells.

If such makes it easier to balance the encounters per day, then definitely.


----------



## Haplo781

Just make Heroic Fantasy an official alternate rule along with Gritty Realism. 5 minute short rests, maximized healing from hit dice.


----------



## Malmuria

Treasure tables, as they currently exist in the dmg, should be excised and replaced with something more fitting 5e play.  When was the last time you rolled "3d6x10" EP when putting together an adventure?  It's a legacy way of doing treasure.


----------



## Haplo781

Malmuria said:


> Treasure tables, as they currently exist in the dmg, should be excised and replaced with something more fitting 5e play.  When was the last time you rolled "3d6x10" EP when putting together an adventure?  It's a legacy way of doing treasure.
> 
> View attachment 259608



4e treasure parcels please and thank you


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> Treasure tables, as they currently exist in the dmg, should be excised and replaced with something more fitting 5e play.  When was the last time you rolled "3d6x10" EP when putting together an adventure?  It's a legacy way of doing treasure.
> 
> View attachment 259608



The real problem is that treasure serves no purpose in 5e. Rather than excise random treasure, I would prefer to see them actually make it matter.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> The real problem is that treasure serves no purpose in 5e. Rather than excise random treasure, I would prefer to see them actually make it matter.



Figuring out how to get treasure out of the dungeon, tallying up how much you got for the sake of leveling up, and getting really lucky on a magic item table all make sense when one is playing an early edition.  In 5e, it's just bookkeeping.  I'd rather have the book that suggests wealth by level or by tier, and then gives me flavorful examples of valuable objects.


----------



## tetrasodium

Malmuria said:


> Figuring out how to get treasure out of the dungeon, tallying up how much you got for the sake of leveling up, and getting really lucky on a magic item table all make sense when one is playing an early edition.  In 5e, it's just bookkeeping.  I'd rather have the book that suggests wealth by level or by tier, and then gives me flavorful examples of valuable objects.



It's just book keeping because wotc declared magic items "optional" & got rid of magic item churn.  That design choice has serious negative consequences like most making magic items &  treasure meaningless bookkeeping while obliviating every motivation that once hinged on obtaining enough treasure


----------



## Remathilis

Malmuria said:


> Figuring out how to get treasure out of the dungeon, tallying up how much you got for the sake of leveling up, and getting really lucky on a magic item table all make sense when one is playing an early edition. In 5e, it's just bookkeeping. I'd rather have the book that suggests wealth by level or by tier, and then gives me flavorful examples of valuable objects.





tetrasodium said:


> It's just book keeping because wotc declared magic items "optional" & got rid of magic item churn. That design choice has serious negative consequences like magic treasure meaningless bookkeeping while obliviating every motivation that once hinged on obtaining enough treasure



Better yet, get rid of "treasure". Lose much of the weak filler stuff and only have powerful "relic" items that are very rare but game changing. Everyone remembers when they got a sunblade or a cloak of displacement, but nobody remembers the +1 spear or feather token they got at level 2...

Fewer items, but powerful ones. The incidental stuff should be built into the classes.


----------



## SkidAce

Remathilis said:


> Better yet, get rid of "treasure". Lose much of the weak filler stuff and only have powerful "relic" items that are very rare but game changing. Everyone remembers when they got a sunblade or a cloak of displacement, but nobody remembers the +1 spear or feather token they got at level 2...
> 
> Fewer items, but powerful ones. The incidental stuff should be built into the classes.



Since magical items are "optional" and left to the DM, it looks to me like 5e is already set up to run a game like you want it.

Only hand out/let them find powerful items and no knick knacks.


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> Better yet, get rid of "treasure". Lose much of the weak filler stuff and only have powerful "relic" items that are very rare but game changing. Everyone remembers when they got a sunblade or a cloak of displacement, but nobody remembers the +1 spear or feather token they got at level 2...
> 
> Fewer items, but powerful ones. The incidental stuff should be built into the classes.



since 5E does not have any levels of masterwork, elvencraft, dwarvencraft, masterpiece or other types of "mundane" non magic items that are better than gear for level 1 grunt, I see +1 to +3 as improvement of basic items, that anyone can make with tools if proficient.

I.E. for +1 item you need tool proficiency and +3 proficiency bonus
for +2 you need +4 proficiency bonus
for +3 you need +6 proficiency bonus and expertise in that tool.

now for materials, you can keep it simple and just have players drop gold into magic items, or disenchant other magic items to have raw material for crafting. Or you can make a plot hook out of it. Need troll blood, basilisk heart or gallon of dragon blood...


----------



## delericho

Malmuria said:


> Treasure tables, as they currently exist in the dmg, should be excised and replaced with something more fitting 5e play.



Those are amongst the very few bits of the DMG that I actually use!



Malmuria said:


> When was the last time you rolled "3d6x10" EP when putting together an adventure?



Friday.


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> Figuring out how to get treasure out of the dungeon, tallying up how much you got for the sake of leveling up, and getting really lucky on a magic item table all make sense when one is playing an early edition.  In 5e, it's just bookkeeping.  I'd rather have the book that suggests wealth by level or by tier, and then gives me flavorful examples of valuable objects.



That's one way to make wealth matter. There are lots of ways. They should provide a bunch of them.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> That's one way to make wealth matter. There are lots of ways. They should provide a bunch of them.



Starting with a magic item price guide where each item is individually priced based on some combination of assumed rarity, overall usefulness, and cost of manufacture or creation.

A magic item price guide built around a formula (as in, the way both 3e and 4e did it) doesn't work, as it utterly ignores the usefulness piece leading to wild over-valuing and under-valuing of some items.


----------



## MockingBird

I found that if I give the +1 weapon a cool name it gets remembered.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Lanefan said:


> Starting with a magic item price guide where each item is individually priced based on some combination of assumed rarity, overall usefulness, and cost of manufacture or creation.
> 
> A magic item price guide built around a formula (as in, the way both 3e and 4e did it) doesn't work, as it utterly ignores the usefulness piece leading to wild over-valuing and under-valuing of some items.



that is surprisingly well thought out.


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> Starting with a magic item price guide where each item is individually priced based on some combination of assumed rarity, overall usefulness, and cost of manufacture or creation.
> 
> A magic item price guide built around a formula (as in, the way both 3e and 4e did it) doesn't work, as it utterly ignores the usefulness piece leading to wild over-valuing and under-valuing of some items.



Meh. I don't think it is the most important thing. I would rather see costs for fortresses and staff, and waging war. Or for bankrollng caravans or merchant ventures. Turning every gold piece the PCs find back into items that disrupt the mathematical balance of the game is the last thing I want, in fact.


----------



## Haplo781

Reynard said:


> Meh. I don't think it is the most important thing. I would rather see costs for fortresses and staff, and waging war. Or for bankrollng caravans or merchant ventures. Turning every gold piece the PCs find back into items that disrupt the mathematical balance of the game is the last thing I want, in fact.



At least give them a recommended level.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> Meh. I don't think it is the most important thing. I would rather see costs for fortresses and staff, and waging war. Or for bankrollng caravans or merchant ventures. Turning every gold piece the PCs find back into items that disrupt the mathematical balance of the game is the last thing I want, in fact.



There's a difference between us, I suppose, in that I largely don't give much of a fig about the mathematical balance.  If the PCs get too powerful I can always up the opposition (in the long run, not the here-and-now of any given battle!), while if they get in over their heads* it's on them to find a way out.  And if the game's that finely tuned that the presence or absence of some magic items will throw it out of whack, it's neither robust nor flexible enough for what I want.

* - by their own doing; if I run them into something over their heads by my own error I'll usually try to provide some sort of out-clause or getaway car, which it's then on them to not ignore...


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> Meh. I don't think it is the most important thing. I would rather see costs for fortresses and staff, and waging war. Or for bankrollng caravans or merchant ventures.



I just don’t know that style of play is much more than a rather small niche anymore.  Not tiny—the MCDM products were very successful (though in part just building off the success of MC’s youtube channel).  But if some element of base-building were part of the game, wotc would do better to look at blades in the dark or the free league year-zero games for building out a system.  I think that would fit the tenor of 5e more than a “2000 gp for a drawbridge” type subsystem.


----------



## Undrave

Wizards. 



ReshiIRE said:


> Most things I would like to see 'excised' are things that I want replacements for and, in particular, would massively change the game in many ways. So I'll go with something simple:
> 
> Trap options and mechanics that do not work as intended and are probably too difficul to replace with something that just works without causing further issues, assuming nothing drastic changes about the system
> 
> Example: True Strike. The spell is actively a bad idea in 5e for a wide variety of reasons; I don't see how you could rework it to work in 5e without making it ridiculous.




True Strike should never have been in the PHB and instead Toll the Dead should have been there to give the Cleric and Bard more than 1 damaging cantrip.


----------



## glass

Lanefan said:


> A magic item price guide built around a formula (as in, the way both 3e and 4e did it) doesn't work, as it utterly ignores the usefulness piece leading to wild over-valuing and under-valuing of some items.



Both 3e and 4e item prices were supposed to be based purely on "usefulness". They were not terribly succesful in that, but that is hardly the same as "utterly ignor[ing]" it.


----------



## Lanefan

glass said:


> Both 3e and 4e item prices were supposed to be based purely on "usefulness". They were not terribly succesful in that,



Understatement of the year, that is. 


glass said:


> but that is hardly the same as "utterly ignor[ing]" it.



When (in 3e) a wand of CLW and a wand of Expeditious Retreat cost the same, it's pretty safe to say usefulness wasn't even considered.  I could easily dig up equally egregious 4e examples; but all you need to do there is look at how all the items of a given tier are priced exactly the same to know that the formula approach won out over actually looking at each item's (likely) degree of usefulness in adventuring and-or in the greater world.


----------



## Lanefan

Undrave said:


> True Strike should never have been in the PHB and instead Toll the Dead should have been there to give the Cleric and Bard more than 1 damaging cantrip.



True Strike is fixable, I think: make it that it targets the weapon, that the targeted weapon can only be used by the caster, and that that weapon's next swing or shot (which has to be taken in the following round or the effect is lost) will automatically hit (but never crit or smite or do anything else special).  An auto-hit every other round doesn't seem like the end of the world.

If allowing it to target magic weapons might lead to too many broken things down the road, only allow it to target unenchanted weapons.


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> There's a difference between us, I suppose, in that I largely don't give much of a fig about the mathematical balance.  If the PCs get too powerful I can always up the opposition (in the long run, not the here-and-now of any given battle!), while if they get in over their heads* it's on them to find a way out.  And if the game's that finely tuned that the presence or absence of some magic items will throw it out of whack, it's neither robust nor flexible enough for what I want.
> 
> * - by their own doing; if I run them into something over their heads by my own error I'll usually try to provide some sort of out-clause or getaway car, which it's then on them to not ignore...



If you don't care about balance then.why do.you need to systemetize magic item creation. Just say "yes" and carry on. Tight systems for item creation only make sense if one of your goals is balance.


----------



## tetrasodium

Lanefan said:


> There's a difference between us, I suppose, in that I largely don't give much of a fig about the mathematical balance.  If the PCs get too powerful I can always up the opposition (in the long run, not the here-and-now of any given battle!), while if they get in over their heads* it's on them to find a way out.  And if the game's that finely tuned that the presence or absence of some magic items will throw it out of whack, it's neither robust nor flexible enough for what I want.
> 
> * - by their own doing; if I run them into something over their heads by my own error I'll usually try to provide some sort of out-clause or getaway car, which it's then on them to not ignore...



Unless it's changed I seem to remember you running a very 1e/2e based game, mathematical balance is less important when the system has the level of risk attrition & need present in those systems.  In a game like 5e where PCs are almost immune to risk & practically opt out of need or attrition the math is a _smidge_ more important


----------



## Reynard

The more I think about it, the more I would love to see subclasses excised. Classes are supposed to be archetypes. So let folks play archetypes and code some "subclass abilities" as just stuff you choose at whatever level.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> If you don't care about balance then.why do.you need to systemetize magic item creation. Just say "yes" and carry on. Tight systems for item creation only make sense if one of your goals is balance.



I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not coming at this from an item creation perspective, but from an item buy-sell-trade perspective.  Buying or upgrading or commissioning items is the biggest money sink in my game, far outstripping training (which I also have).  And items can break or be destroyed too, and thus need replacement or repair.

Creating items isn't something PCs often do, if ever.


----------



## Emirikol

Dump Ability scores. Just use the bonus number. 

Ability scores: since everyone is just so special, it should go from 0-5 because negatives are no longer trendy. Chart referencing is just archaic at this point.

Get rid of darkvision. Wth is the point if EVERYONE can see always anyways?

Dump skills and just use saves. Have specializations if you want.

Dump all spells above 5th from the phb.  Wth do we have character levels..and spell 'levels' that have nothing in common. Call em A,B,c, etc for all I care.

Dump all the variant spellcasters. Jeez how many do we we need? Maybe add some more less/no magic-crutch classes back in.

Dump the video game feel that we have everpresent nowadays.

Hair, eyes skin whatever wastes space on character sheets and especially on VTT character sheets. They dont matter and no longer belong in the game. Age as a number? Heh. Good one. Yea we TOTALLY use that..not.

Passive perception. Holy heck if I have to listen to another smug-ling' belch about how he 'won d&d' Im gonna hurl.


Money. Ooooh, who doesnt love that worthless part of the game?


----------



## Emirikol

One more thing: magic. This "gods as accountants" delineation from arcane is dumb. Magic is magic is magic. Thats it  no divine. No primordial. 
Less "gods" crap in the next game would be good too.


----------



## Remathilis

Emirikol said:


> Dump Ability scores. Just use the bonus number.
> 
> Ability scores: since everyone is just so special, it should go from 0-5 because negatives are no longer trendy. Chart referencing is just archaic at this point.
> 
> Get rid of darkvision. Wth is the point if EVERYONE can see always anyways?
> 
> Dump skills and just use saves. Have specializations if you want.
> 
> Dump all spells above 5th from the phb. Wth do we have character levels..and spell 'levels' that have nothing in common. Call em A,B,c, etc for all I care.
> 
> Dump all the variant spellcasters. Jeez how many do we we need? Maybe add some more less/no magic-crutch classes back in.
> 
> Dump the video game feel that we have everpresent nowadays.
> 
> Hair, eyes skin whatever wastes space on character sheets and especially on VTT character sheets. They dont matter and no longer belong in the game. Age as a number? Heh. Good one. Yea we TOTALLY use that..not.
> 
> Passive perception. Holy heck if I have to listen to another smug-ling' belch about how he 'won d&d' Im gonna hurl.
> 
> 
> Money. Ooooh, who doesnt love that worthless part of the game?



Dump dungeons: the idea of giant underground buildings full of monsters and treasure is so 1980's video game. The game has moved on to collaborative storytelling, it's time to quit pretending to be a bad Gauntlet simulator.

Dump dragons: they are absolutely overdone in modern media. I mean, HBO has a new series about dragons and I'm like "yawn". Maybe they should try to focus on new monsters. Like mind flayers.


----------



## Lanefan

Remathilis said:


> Dump dungeons: the idea of giant underground buildings full of monsters and treasure is so 1980's video game.



Indeed.  In the 2020s we've modernized - now it's giant flying buildings full of monsters and treasure... 


Remathilis said:


> Dump dragons: they are absolutely overdone in modern media. I mean, HBO has a new series about dragons and I'm like "yawn". Maybe they should try to focus on new monsters. Like mind flayers.



One could say dragons have been overdone since the mid 80s, but they're still cool anyway.


----------



## Marandahir

More than excise, I want consolidation of a few options that step on each other's toes. The Undying Patron should be excised because it's essentially telling the same narrative as The Undead and can be considered consolidated there. I want The Hexblade Patron consolidated with a more vigorous Pact of the Blade (make each of the Pact Boons more vigorous, without requiring Invocations to pump them up).

I want Death Cleric and Grave Cleric to be a single Death Domain option that can add necrotic damage to weapon attacks or to potent cantrips. No need for a Good Death Cleric and an Evil Death Cleric. If you're going to use Death Domain to mean Slaughter and Pestilence and the horrors of war, maybe you need another domain like "Destruction Domain" or something.

I want Arcane Archer to be split into Arcane Archer and Primal Seeker, utilizing the Arcane and Primal spell lists to some extent respectively.


----------



## Haplo781

Marandahir said:


> I want Arcane Archer to be split into Arcane Archer and Primal Seeker, utilizing the Arcane and Primal spell lists to some extent respectively.



That sounds a lot like a ranger.


----------



## SkidAce

Marandahir said:


> More than excise, I want consolidation of a few options that step on each other's toes. The Undying Patron should be excised because it's essentially telling the same narrative as The Undead and can be considered consolidated there. I want The Hexblade Patron consolidated with a more vigorous Pact of the Blade (make each of the Pact Boons more vigorous, without requiring Invocations to pump them up).
> 
> I want Death Cleric and Grave Cleric to be a single Death Domain option that can add necrotic damage to weapon attacks or to potent cantrips. No need for a Good Death Cleric and an Evil Death Cleric. If you're going to use Death Domain to mean Slaughter and Pestilence and the horrors of war, maybe you need another domain like "Destruction Domain" or something.
> 
> I want Arcane Archer to be split into Arcane Archer and Primal Seeker, utilizing the Arcane and Primal spell lists to some extent respectively.



I love ideas 1 and 3.

Leave my Death and Grave clerics alone.  hehe.


----------



## tetrasodium

The tendency to have the "Yes And" improv technique as some kind of holy word of god end all perfection of GM'ing.  The trouble with this is that "No Because" & "Yes But" are the other two sides of that same set of improv techniques & when a GM uses either of those it gets harsh scrutiny with little consideration for if those are better choices or choices pushed because the player pushing yes and dropped the ball in a way that pushed the others first.  

dmg287 has this pushing yes and


Spoiler



You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing 
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a 
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic 
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact 
despite having no connection to a culture that normally 
produces warlocks?* As always, it's better to say yes and *
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the 
character's story and that of your world, rather than 
shutting down possibilities.


Yet the words "yes but" & "no because" no not seem to even _appear_ in the dmg


----------



## Cadence

The players who don't actually like D&D.  I hope they find a game they do like.


----------



## Lanefan

Cadence said:


> The players who don't actually like D&D.  I hope they find a game they do like.



Who don't like D&D 5e/5.5e specifically, or D&D in general?

There's a big difference.


----------



## Cadence

Lanefan said:


> Who don't like D&D 5e/5.5e specifically, or D&D in general?
> 
> There's a big difference.



The ones who sound like they object to foundational ways the game play seems to be structured in at least B/X, 1e, 2e, 3.5, and 5. (I didn't play OD&D, Holmes, BECMI, 3, or much of 4 so can't swear to all of them).


----------



## tetrasodium

Spoiler: this being forced on the gm



It's a hostage situation the GM has no cards to play in


----------

