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

[CleverNickName]

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

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

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

What do you do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

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

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

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

 

[CleverNickName]

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

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

 

[Raith5]

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

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathfinder broke literally all that.

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

Agreed

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

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

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

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

 

[Mecheon]

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

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

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

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

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