D&D 5E What most needs revision for the (hypothetical) 50th anniversary core books?

[Lanefan]

The Dungeon Master's Guide
Different order to the chapters and more focus on advice for new players

The PH is the place for advice for new players.

The DMG is the place for advice for new DMs. Here they could stand to go far deeper into homebrew world/setting building and design, I think. Oh, and some magic item price lists would be handy too; a simplistic formula just doesn't work nearly enough of the time.

 

[Yaarel]

Discussions about "gods" needs to be removed from the Cleric class, and instead added to the DM worldbuilding options.

The DM is the one who is responsible for how the world works (not the Cleric class).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree on the bounded accuracy idea, but not the classes. And to be clear, I don't think they'll do the bounded accuracy idea as it is too deep a structural change and would imply 6E. But I do think they'll rework some of the classes. That's kind of the point of revisions - to correct any problems that didn't show up until millions played the game.


What do you mean by the third one? I mean, I agree if you mean what I think you mean, but am not sure.

I'm OK with the first if it allows for recreating the traditional races, which I think it will, and even offering them as an optional default. That's a good example of how traditional and new can both be embraced. Sort of like the quick-start classes.

I'm really indifferent on alignment because I've never really played it as more than a guideline for behavior. But it will be interesting to see how they adjust all the little bits that are tied to alignment. And I hope they don't overly alter lore or limit creative directions.

I like that, but not Wildemount - it is too stylized towards a certain play style. But yeah, FR feels a bit stale at this point.

Yes and yes, although I like the idea of a revampled sorcerer more than a replacment with psion. There is a tonal difference to the two.

This reminds me that I've barely read through the DMG. It just isn't all that useful.

I like it.

Re: Apology edition what I mean is that all of the design in early 5E was predicated on this fear that they might possibly offend someone, and they desperately wanted to get back as much of the PF playerbase as possible, whilst retaining at least some of the 4E playerbase (who they actually treated worse, I guess because they felt they were more loyal and thus could afford to ignore - they weren't entirely wrong, either!). There were a lot of bad decisions that were the result of this overcaution. Some good new stuff came through anyway, like Advantage/Disadvantage, but an awful lot of stuff is just sort of hanging around. The Sorcerer is one example. The "70% approval" thing they used to have (which seems to be gone now) was emblematic of this whole attitude.

However, they now have 50m+ players. Most of them never played PF or even 3.XE at all, or 4E. A huge number are new to RPGs. They will have different things they like about D&D, and different things which are "sacred cows" to them about 5E, that they really don't want changed, and they're much younger, so will be more accepting or even demanding of novelty and change than 40+ grogs whose groups might have a health incident if they had to learn a new rule or a class got rejigged (I kid, I'm 43 for god's sake but sometimes I get that vibe from certain posts - posts, not posters, note, no-one is quite that groggy all the time lol).

Instead of trying to just gather up what they can of the old 3.XE and 4E players, which was DND Next's purpose, they need to go forwards really embrace the new players, who are so numerous, and make sure D&D becomes this thing that they want to teach their kids in 20+ years or whatever (as some of the 40+ people are now doing), and that they're still playing at 20, 30, 40 and so on. They're potentially easy to lose because much as many grogs hate novelty, younger players tend to love it. You have to strike the right balance, and it's a totally different balance to 2014 or whenever.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Discussions about "gods" needs to be removed from the Cleric class, and instead added to the DM worldbuilding options.

The DM is the one who is responsible for how the world works (not the Cleric class).

This is why they need to remove or minimize the gods as part of the subclass/archetype choice in the Cleric class. They should probably have three subclasses - melee, buffer/healer and invoker for Cleric, and your god should maybe just determine your bonus spell list or something. Right now the design is in an awkward place where even the default options might not be available/suitable in a given game-world.

 

[pogre]

I think the game must be in decent shape, because there is very little consensus on what needs changing - pretty much everything comes down to personal tastes. Speaking of which -

I would like to see a few spells revised like forcecage, wall of force, and true polymorph.

I agree that despite their efforts the encounter guidelines are a mess. For the sake of newer GMs I would like to see those revised or even dropped.

 

[ART!]

Toast or an optional rule?

For the life of me I don't know why WotC can't take a both/and approach with some of these changes (e.g. alignment, racial ability mods, etc).

I feel like they are, though? I was impressed with the cleverness of their approach in Tasha's, of just making the new chargen choices options - no formal rules change is required. There are already lots of chargen optional rules, like all the Skill variant rules. They can do the same with alignments.

 

[Aldarc]

If I had absolute dictatorial power, I'd

- Make all Classes pick their Subclass at Level 1 which would open up design space for Subclasses significantly,

Part of the problem is the disparity between what different classes get as part of their basic package, particularly at lower levels. I would consider making it so that the class chassis are the basic versions of the class and the subclasses then are an additional layer that you can add-on, which would also increase modularity.

- Rename the Monk "Mystic" and change Ki points to Spell Slots which they secretly are (among other changes to de-Orientailize them)

I would go with Vowed (see Vowed in Worlds Without Number or the Oathsworn in Arcana Evolved) to even move away from the "mystic" and ki aspects. The Vowed gets their powers from the vows that they swear, similar to Paladin oaths.

- Separate Barbarian cultural flavor from the Rage Class.

The Berserker?

This is why they need to remove or minimize the gods as part of the subclass/archetype choice in the Cleric class. They should probably have three subclasses - melee, buffer/healer and invoker for Cleric, and your god should maybe just determine your bonus spell list or something. Right now the design is in an awkward place where even the default options might not be available/suitable in a given game-world.

I like that idea.


If I had my way, I would borrow several ideas from PF2, namely unified spell lists: i.e., Primal, Psionic, Arcane, Divine. Classes would then be designed around playstyles: e.g., no-armored scholar class; gish; war caster; innate; pact/summoner; etc. So if you wanted to be a Wizard, then you would pick the no-armored scholar class plus the Arcane spell list. But you could also be a scholar-class with the Divine spell list (i.e., Cleric) or a scholar-class with the Psionic spell list (Psion).

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

A set of books like this shouldn't be like ESSENTIALS of 3.5 Ed and more like the black border reprints from the 1990s
You shouldn't need to rebuy the books and it shouldn't matter what you bring to your Adventurer's League game
It shouldn't change any of the rules in the book
Instead, it should just focus on the presentation

A stronger opening chapter to both. Make it easier for brand new people
Stronger clarification of how some FAQ rules work, like calculating AC
A better index is needed
They could also increase the diversity into the art
They'd probably tweak races as well. Removing racial ability scores

 

[Yaarel]

Part of the problem is the disparity between what different classes get as part of their basic package, particularly at lower levels. I would consider making it so that the class chassis are the basic versions of the class and the subclasses then are an additional layer that you can add-on, which would also increase modularity.


I would go with Vowed (see Vowed in Worlds Without Number or the Oathsworn in Arcana Evolved) to even move away from the "mystic" and ki aspects. The Vowed gets their powers from the vows that they swear, similar to Paladin oaths.


The Berserker?


I like that idea.


If I had my way, I would borrow several ideas from PF2, namely unified spell lists: i.e., Primal, Psionic, Arcane, Divine. Classes would then be designed around playstyles: e.g., no-armored scholar class; gish; war caster; innate; pact/summoner; etc. So if you wanted to be a Wizard, then you would pick the no-armored scholar class plus the Arcane spell list. But you could also be a scholar-class with the Divine spell list (i.e., Cleric) or a scholar-class with the Psionic spell list (Psion).

Choosing the subclass archetype at level 1.

Structurally, level 1 has about the same amount of information as two levels combined.

When thinking about the "base class" features and the "specialized archetype" features, I find it conducive to treat the "specialized archetype" as level zero abilities, and then add the "base class" as level 1 abilities.

Narratively, the character first demonstrates a talent and aptitude for something specific early on during "level zero" sotospeak. Then later the "base class" training helps round the character out to be an effective and versatile member of the class.

Because the specialization happens at level zero, every level 1 character includes a specialized archetype.

It is even possible for a character to specialize in something else at zero (such as casting a cantrip), but then switch to a different base class (such as Fighter). Mechanically, this is moreorless swapping a class feature, but it can help add verisimilitude to the biography of a character.



What is most salient about a Monk? That it is a martial unarmed combatant, or that it is a magical class? Maybe rename the Monk "Athlete"? Let the subclass archetype determine the magical abilities of the "Athlete", if any.



Berserkr is a reallife name, and refers to magic. Conceptually, the tradition reuses (feminine) shamanic magical techniques for the purpose of (masculine) combat. The ferocity of a Berserkr is because the mind of the Berserkr has become an animal − and sometimes the physical body transforms into that animal as well. Essentially, shapeshifting magic.



The do-anything "Arcane" power source might work better splitting up into several power sources, such as Elemental, Necromantic, and so on.

 

[Steampunkette]

Psionicist as a core class. 13 is an unlucky number for some, so toss the Artificer into the PHB as well.

The updated Ranger and its Beastmaster from Tasha's as the new defaults.

Clearer rules vis a vis spellcasting and weapon attacks.

The addition of errata from various sources, obviously, into the core material so that people can ask whole new questions about how things work or should work.

Added sections to social/exploration from various sources to the PHB with a heavier investment of additional pages to the DMG.

A serious attempt at some kind of travel/movement system more complex than measuring distances and "Create a bunch of random encounter tables because travel is just more combat with narrative distances between them!"

Noncombat Gameification. Combat is great and all, but some kind of social and exploration game systems would be peachy keen. Journey's a great example with it's regions and abstracted Supply resource system. Nothing rules-heavy, but not rules-missing, either.

Alignment stays, remains a secondary concern. Probably made a part of the Background/Identity subsystem of character creation.