D&D (2024) YOU are in charge of the next PHB! What do you change?

[Aldarc]

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

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

 

[el-remmen]

Pretty sure the changes I made would be incredibly unpopular.

 

[Laurefindel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jack Daniel]

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

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

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

 

[NotAYakk]

The number on the cover.

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

Revise the Ranger.

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

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

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

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

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

Do a cleanup pass on bonus action economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So two major "beats" at each tier.

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

Revise "alternative attack stat" mechanics.

 

[Fenris-77]

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

 

[TwoSix]

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

But that's what makes it fun!

 

[DemoMonkey]

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

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gladius Legis]

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