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

[tetrasodium]

In addition to finetuning how race works, if there is one more "eyebrow raising" update that I want for the 2024 consolidation, it is that every class can express their archetype at level 1. (For example, that an Eldritch Knight has no magic at level 1 feels absurd to me. What were the high elves and githyanki doing for all of those years growing up training to be gishes?)

Perhaps, archetype at level 1 can be stealth-errataed by offering various feature swaps at level 1. The same kind of feature-swap options in Tashas that improve the Ranger, and so on, could appear in a future UA to swap in archetype features at level 1.

You'd need 13 or more different verions. different classes get their archetype at different levels & even what they get at 1-3 varies

 

[jmartkdr2]

You'd need 13 or more different verions. different classes get their archetype at different levels & even what they get at 1-3 varies

Most classes would only need small adjustments, though - ie paladin could add some customization to Divine Sense by letting you select which three creature types it pings on (with subsets for humanoids), stuff like that.

 

[Sithlord]

I think concentration needs looked at closely. Not saying removed from the game. But a closer looks at what spells should have concentration.
I think short rests may need some revision.

god I want a wizard archetype that uses meta magic. But that’s more than a revision that’s an extra bell and whistle.
I really think spells like fireball and burning hands should scale an extra 2d6 per addition spell slot used to upcast. They are still doing less than a spell of the same level. Just my opinion.
A nice rework of the ranger is almost universally desired. Making the monk a little more Bruce Lee also.

cantrip damage should be increased every tier.

 

[Rikka66]

I think any kind of revision would see changes from the current state levels 1-3 are in. I don't think they'd kept the current situation where experienced players are expected to start at level 3 (which I swear the developers have said, but I can't find the quote so maybe someone check me on that) but level 1 (and to a lesser extent 2) are incredibly lethal.

 

[Faolyn]

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 could see a combo of the way they're doing that and what you're suggesting. Continue with domains like they are now (Life, Tempest, War, etc.), with each god granting access to some of them, but they only affect what bonus spells you get. The actual archetypes would be things like melee, buffer, etc. A Melee cleric of a god would have different abilities than a Summoner cleric of the same god, but they might both get the same domain spells anyway.

 

[Faolyn]

• Setting (Forgotten Realms as separable setting assumptions, or use Dark Sun instead, or whatever)

I would go with less of a setting and more of a collection of locations instead. Like in Ye Olde Days, before there were any actual official settings but everyone knew about the Village of Hommelet (or however it's spelled; I'm too lazy to look it up). Add in one or more chapters on how to worldbuild (perhaps with a collection of random tables since those are always fun) and suggestions on how to incorporate the included locations into your own world. So such a collection of locations could have a few major cities, several more towns, villages, settlements, and fortresses of various sizes, a bunch of Mysterious Ruins, Dark Forests, Creepy Swamps, and the like. And it could also include things like mercenary groups, weird cults, traveling trader groups, and other factions that could be of interest to the PCs. Then you, the DM, can assemble them like Lego into the world of your choice.

 

[Yaarel]

I think concentration needs looked at closely. Not saying removed from the game. But a closer looks at what spells should have concentration.
I think short rests may need some revision.

god I want a wizard archetype that uses meta magic. But that’s more than a revision that’s an extra bell and whistle.
I really think spells like fireball and burning hands should scale an extra 2d6 per addition spell slot used to upcast. They are still doing less than a spell of the same level. Just my opinion.
A nice rework of the ranger is almost universally desired. Making the monk a little more Bruce Lee also.

cantrip damage should be increased every tier.

Yeah.

I would love for a UA to come out with an item-by-item tweak of all of the spells.

Which spells need concentration definitely needs doublechecking.

Generally, 5e is excellent for having removed broken-overpowered spells. But there are way too many broken-underpowered spells littering the spell lists. Some spells work better if available sooner at a lower slot. A legacy spell like Legend Lore way up in slot 5 seems unworthy of the slot when the History skill obsoletes it. Skill checks have replaced many spells. Some spells need a rewrite, and some spells might as well be removed. It is probably better to normalize the damage of Fireball spell in line with the amount of damage of other damage spells. Maybe the advantage of the fire damage type is it tends to have a wider area of effect that targets more creatures. Mobility spells need levels that correspond better to how powerful the spell actually is. And so on.

Cantrip damage needs to be more effective at higher levels − the damage is low to begin with, and resistances make even this become almost negligible. I would like if the tiers increased fivefold, corresponding to the proficiency bonus levels: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20.

Spells need a clean-up.

 

[Alzrius]

Mearls doesn't work on the RPG anymore so his opinion doesn't matter

I thought Mearls was back on the D&D RPG team.

 

[Faolyn]

Easier to call it the "brawler" and have one subclass option or choice of features be more monastic, but have other non-Eastern builds that will make it work better in Western Fantasy

Problem is, brawler suggests an undisciplined fighter, like a bar brawler. Which is the exact opposite of what a monk actually is. Level Up is going with adept and has replaced ki with exertion (which all martials get; adepts just get unique abilities on which to spend exertion).

But if the purpose of a monk is to be an unarmed fighter, then maybe (in 6e, not 5.5e) it just needs to be a different type of regular fighter. One that gets its bonuses to unarmed combat and movement instead of using melee or missile weapons.

 

[Faolyn]

The issue with that in practice, as I heard Mearls talk about in the Happy Fun Hour so many Moons ago, is that they've found that most players pick their Subclass at Level 1 anyways, so all that decision ended up doing was limiting the versatility of some Classes.

I kind of doubt that WotC will make any such radical change, but if I could wave a magical wand and dictate 6E, that's one of the few glaring issues with the game.

I would actually make subclasses at 2nd level across the board. But that's because those 1-level dips (usually in warlock for EB) annoy the heck out of me.