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

[Oofta]

I see no reason to not be willing to consider other options, if it is 50/50 then no need to really change but even d20 could be changed.

You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E. At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.

 

[Malmuria]

@Parmandur already covered it, but I think it's worth a little more discussion.

The Basic book (which is the common four races, the core four classes + one sub each, a few backgrounds and enough monsters to run simple modules) was more-or-less a "free-to-play" version of the game. It's not that much less complicated than what the PHB offers, save for a lot less choices and no feats/multi-classing.

When people speak of wanting a Basic/Advanced system similar to the 80's D&D/AD&D split, they effectively asking for two versions of D&D to be made; one that doesn't have all the bells and whistles and one that that has deep customization and rules support. TIMHO, that would be the worst possible setup for WotC as they would either focus support on the Basic version (and ignoring the advanced options) or towards the Advanced one (and thus be incompatible with the basic one). So, if the advanced system uses tactical combat rules but modules are written with simpler "I attack" style rules, the tactical rules are going to feel superfluous and needlessly complex or worse, break what balance the module was trying to accomplish.

I feel like that they've ended up at a middle ground that is functional for both styles of play but not ideal for either. I'd bet there are a lot of tables where a lot of the special abilities and such get written down but never get used, and other tables that find 5e does not have enough customization, tactical options, or support for higher levels. I have players that like playing but are just not interested in learning how the game works, leading to the dm constantly being in a teaching role, which adds to cognitive load.

As stated upthread, I think this could be addressed by using levels and optional rules to gate off complexity. I suppose Tasha's is an example of this, but it takes the approach of introducing more complexity starting at level 1, whereas people who want complexity probably want tier 3 and tier 4 levels of character power.

 

[Malmuria]

Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries? Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype. Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor. I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class is your background to a large extent.

It would help here if the classes were very distinct.

 

[Scott Christian]

Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries? Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype. Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor. I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class is your background to a large extent.

It would help here if the classes were very distinct.

There would be sooooooooo much backlash.!
But to be honest, I would probably like it. I am a fan of set menus at restaurants too, so...

 

[Minigiant]

Radical idea, but what if they got rid of the mechanical aspects of races/ancestries? Getting my OSE books, I see how elegant race-as-class is, simply because it puts all character abilities in one section and leans into archetype. Race as class wouldn't work for a 6e, but they could just put 90%-100% of the mechanical stuff in class and let race be mostly flavor. I'm not even sure background adds a lot; I mean, your class is your background to a large extent.

It would help here if the classes were very distinct.

D&D has been at a crossroads on this for a while. Races have been becoming rubberforehead humans for awhile with races just being stat adjustments. Only 4e really pushed races having heavier mechanical effects and it was barely.

For 6e, to be the best way to do races/ancestry is to have 2 versions of them: One rubberforehead version and one extreme monster/fantasy version.

The base elf would get +2 to any score, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, and a elf subclass.
The high fantasy version would get +4 to Dexterity, -2 to Constitution, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, aging immunity, cold-iron vulnerability, diplomacy disadvantage, and a elf subclass.

 

[Shardstone]

You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E. At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.

I'm glad this is a thread about what we would change then to meet our tastes, and not us trying to be WotC.

 

[Mind of tempest]

You can do anything you want, but that didn't work very well for 4E. At a certain point, if you change enough it's D&D in name only for a lot of people.

that also has to be factored into a new edition so stats, class, races and dice are certain at least as well as something 4e failed to do but has never been quantified too me.

 

[MoonSong]

D&D has been at a crossroads on this for a while. Races have been becoming rubberforehead humans for awhile with races just being stat adjustments. Only 4e really pushed races having heavier mechanical effects and it was barely.

For 6e, to be the best way to do races/ancestry is to have 2 versions of them: One rubberforehead version and one extreme monster/fantasy version.

The base elf would get +2 to any score, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, and a elf subclass.
The high fantasy version would get +4 to Dexterity, -2 to Constitution, +1 to any score, elf sense, fey ancestry, trance, aging immunity, cold-iron vulnerability, diplomacy disadvantage, and a elf subclass.

I would remove all ASIs from race. Only leaving adjustments to be used exclusively when rolling. And these adjustments are only raise one physical stat, lower another physical stat. But if it is pointbuy/array, we don't need no ASIs.

 

[DammitVictor]

Honestly, I've come to accept that I've lost the fight for race-as-class but the more I see the direction D&D is going with races, the more committed I am to anything I'd call My D&D either being race-as-class or strictly humans only.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm glad this is a thread about what we would change then to meet our tastes, and not us trying to be WotC.

Well, except it really isn't...

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.

They key factor here is "compatible with other non-PHB 5e books", not "you're free to go nuts". So, this really isn't the thread for people to decide druid isn't a class, it's the thread on how to fix the 5e druid. So, all these hot takes of getting rid of spell slots, turning everything that isn't the fighter and/or the wizard into a subclass, or buy Paizo and making Golarion the default D&D world is a little beyond the scope of this discussion.

Not that anyone really paid attention to that, btw. So If your secret plan is have all 5e PHBs spontaneously combust and be replaced with the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia, that's no more off topic than if you want to argue that you would eliminate subraces and make racial features more modular.