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

[The Annihilargh]

J.W.2.S I'm posting this without looking at the thread, just the post. These are all changes I'd make to the 5E PHB, keeping the rest the same.
D&D 6E changes

 

[Stalker0]

The problem is characters with access to expertise can become untouchable in more than just stealth.

Athletics and persuasion, in particular.

The only way to match them is to gain expertise. This is a huge design error.

If used to shore up skills with poor stats, it is less of an issue, but it is not necessarily used in that way.

I don’t think an extra +4 (which is the highest your going to see in the vast majority of games) breaks anything…and certainly doesn’t make you untouchable.
The +5 skill items are the real culprits for “untouchability”

 

[ph0rk]

I don’t think an extra +4 (which is the highest your going to see in the vast majority of games) breaks anything…and certainly doesn’t make you untouchable.
The +5 skill items are the real culprits for “untouchability”

The problem is when someone with access to expertise and a high relevant stat is compared to someone who does not who wishes to be ok at, say, deception.

A clever smooth-talking barbarian might have had a charisma of 12 and proficiency in deception. At level 8, they might have a deception check of +4. A charismatic rogue with expertise might have a +9, and a bard might have a +11.

A bard without expertise may have a check of +8, which is more than enough without making it feel like there is no point in the Barbarian even making a check.

Though, I agree skill items shouldn’t be in the game, or if they are should grant proficiency only.

 

[Faolyn]

Classes:

• Add the Artificer and Warlord classes to core.

And psionicist/mystic/whatever you want to call it. Just to ensure that it is actually different than other spellcasters and that they think up how its abilities work in conjunction with magic.

 

[Faolyn]

So would hybrid be a good name to replace for half elves, orcs, etc?

Probably, because there could also be the expectation that you can create hybrids that have no human in them at all.

 

[Faolyn]

So... Half-Caster Bard would suck. But what if Bard and Warlock style Occult spells capped out at "5th Level" but 5th level was closer to 8th/9th level for a Wizard? Or a Cleric doing the same thing with 7th level spells.

Ugh, no. That's 1e/2e design. What it should be is that their spells are more thematic to who or what they are. Bards should get bard spells.

IMO, there should either be a bit less overlapping when it comes to spells: more unique spells per class, and more ways that each class can modify their spellcasting to to make it more class-specific. So if some class ability lets you have a spell from a different class, it's actually noticeable.

 

[Steampunkette]

Ugh, no. That's 1e/2e design. What it should be is that their spells are more thematic to who or what they are. Bards should get bard spells.

IMO, there should either be a bit less overlapping when it comes to spells: more unique spells per class, and more ways that each class can modify their spellcasting to to make it more class-specific. So if some class ability lets you have a spell from a different class, it's actually noticeable.

Splitting them out to 5th level cap, but making a Bard's 5th level spell on par with a Wizard's 9th level spell in Power would require writing different spell lists.

Unless you just copy-pasted level 8 and 9 spells over to Bard's 5th level spell list...

But I'd prefer wholly different spells from the Wizard/Cleric/Druid Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists.

 

[Faolyn]

Splitting them out to 5th level cap, but making a Bard's 5th level spell on par with a Wizard's 9th level spell in Power would require writing different spell lists.

I just don't think that's the best solution here. There would be such a leap of power difference between spells that it would be hard to assign them properly. There's no real reason not to stick with 1-9 but just make sure they're actually bardic in nature.

But yes. While there are definitely some spells that could belong on more than one spell list, the majority of spells should be unique to either each class or each magical origin.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Additions:
Warlord class, a wider variety of interesting feats, playable orcs, additional weapon properties (brutal, high crit, precision, stout, defensive), actual rules modules and specifically a Tactical Combat Module.

Changes:
Dragonborn that don't suck, BM maneuvers now have higher-level versions or new choices that unlock at higher BM level, Champion is integrated into the base Fighter mechanics and a better "mostly-passive/simple-to-use" subclass replaces it, and all Fighters get Deeds of Might. The Berserker Barbarian is yeeted from this mortal coil and a better "I'm simple and rage even harder" subclass replaces it. Paladin and Ranger do not use spells. Sorcerer and Warlock get moderate rewrites to include more of their playtest version concepts. Rogues get Deeds of Cunning.
The "about the game" fluff text from the Races chapter is completely rewritten to encourage creativity and thinking about why and how different fantasy worlds end up the way they do.

Deletions:
Spells are trimmed a little to keep page count down, favoring removal of certain spells I find unbalancing (can't remember specifics and probably too long to list).

Might be more things, those are the ones that come to mind.

 

[Steampunkette]

I just don't think that's the best solution here. There would be such a leap of power difference between spells that it would be hard to assign them properly. There's no real reason not to stick with 1-9 but just make sure they're actually bardic in nature.

But yes. While there are definitely some spells that could belong on more than one spell list, the majority of spells should be unique to either each class or each magical origin.

The spell-level splitting isn't exactly a solution, it's true. But it's meant to do two things:

1) Create more tangible differences in spellcasting classes. Different spell-grouping identifiers (Divine Invocations of the 1st through 7th Circle compared to Arcane Spells of Levels 1-9 versus Occult Incantations from the 1st to the 5th Order compared to Primal Rites within the 7 Cycles) reinforces the fantasy that different kinds of magic -are- different. Even if they just throw out 8d6 in four different ways, the different levels and the different styles of casting and concept are important.

2) It means that creating new spells means the developers need to think of the groupings the spells will fit into and which they won't, rather than a bucket everyone picks out of. Making an Occult spell means making a spell -specifically- for the Warlock or Bard, rather than just making a spell and saying "How many classes would use this spell?". It's a different design headspace that can push the developer to tailor spells to specific groupings, rather than just making a spell and adding it to the pot.