D&D (2024) What do you want to see excised?

[Lanefan]

Admittedly I haven't played with these rules for very long; they are substitution for gold-for-xp rules in the game I'm using (Whitehack 3e). The problem you describe is not one I've run into in general, as the group tends to do things...as a group.

Both as player and DM, I run into it all the time.

Part of the reason is that we generally tend to have larger parties, where splitting up and-or leaving behind those characters who aren't cut out for a given task just makes sense, as per my example above where two talky characters go out to check the scuttlebutt while the two non-takines stay put. (though here it'd be three talkies go in different directions, while two others stay in the hotel room and two more go downstairs to the hotel tavern and probably start a fight there )

That, and there's a few in our crew who are generally quite content with hanging back and leave the driving - and risk-taking - to others.

Individual xp triggers (lots of games use them) are subject to potential player abuse, but I don't have players like that.

If the triggers are obvious and participation-based (at the PC level), it's hard to abuse them. If your PC gets involved, it gets xp. If it's not there, or is there but does nothing, then no xp. This goes for combat, exploration, talking, all that stuff. (and yes, it does mean I-as-DM have to track who gets involved in each encounter, but that's no big deal...at least until after the first few beer...)

With regards to 5e, I think there could be a more elegant solution to xp than the one they have now, and a solution that corresponds to the goals of the game. For better or for worse, my impression is that 5e, especially in the published adventures, is firmly lodged in the adventure path tradition, and so awarding milestones or levels for completing "story arcs" makes sense in that case.

Yeah, APs sell and so that's the style of play they promote; though in fairness I don't think this playstyle promotion is necessarily as intentional as it might sometimes look.

 

[Greg K]

A Default Setting whether Forgotten Realms or anything else
Levels 13-20
7th to 9th level spells
Darkvision (current version): go back to 3e low-light vision and darkvision
Ardlings: replace with Aasamir and Deva
PC Immunities: replace with advantage
Inspiration on natural 20
Spell Component Pouches
Several spells including, but not limited to Floating Disk, Goodberry, Guiding Bolt, Rope Trick, Tiny Hut
Bags of Holding
The current design team: move them to MtG or setting design.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It is extremely important to get rid of spells that suck.

I'd be more in favor of remaking them to be better instead of getting rid of them. True Strike does not need to be bad, it can be made to be useful (like a +10 to hit roll for the first attack of your next turn, concentration). Bark skin could be useful (medium armor equivalent, no concentration), Stone skin is the same (4d10 THP + 2 AC while the THP remain, no concentration, no consumed components), etc

Just removing them because the designers fumbled them the first time would be a lost.

 

[Greg K]

Yeah. I've never seen it used. About the only use for it that I can see is if you are trying to make a shot with a crossbow that has a rope tied to it and you really want to land it so you can cross the chasm. Cast Truestrike, aim, next round roll with advantage. Those kinds of situations, which don't happen often enough to make it worth taking.

I prefer making True Strike a first level spell that makes the next attack an automatic success, but does not crit.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Remove VSM from spells. Just mark core assumptions (cannot cast if grappled/blinded), specific spells are LOUD or STEALTHY, etc.
Remove multiclassing-dips. You can have one secondary class, and it won't give you all its stuff front-loaded.
Either every race gets subraces, or elves lose their special permissions.
Remove darkvision spam, oh my god.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I am so sick of explaining how off-handed attacks don't include the ability score modifier on damage to brand new players who are already struggling with having separate "to hit" and "damage" bonuses. I am also sick of writing out a second entry under weapon attacks for weapons when used offhanded. I'm also sick of my characters who actually benefit from two weapon fighting (Barbarians and Rogues) being the ones who have to have the nerfed version of it.

Make ability score bonus to damage on offhand attacks the default. Have the fighting style buff it up in some way to keep it a little more viable for the Fighters and Rangers who don't benefit much from it otherwise. Keep everyone from using two-weapon fighting all the time by making sure everyone has other worthwhile uses for their bonus action.

Alternatively just get rid of two-weapon fighting, or lock it entirely behind the fighting style or a feat or whatever. I'm just sick of the system where the characters for whom it actually makes sense have a needlessly complex and weak version of it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Not if you actually read the rules. I swear half the "debates" that exist are literally because people refuse to read the book. It's maddening.

I agree with that in general, but in the specific matter of verbal and somatic components the rules are purposely pretty vague.

 

[d24454_modern]

Ability Caps.

I hate how 5e only let us go to 20 with Ability Scores. Next thing you know they’ll get rid of levels too.

The Whole point of milestone leveling is that people achieve more for less work. (Well, it’s also for story tension but mostly the less work part.) If they’re required to do actions in order to level up, then that defeats the point.

 

[Azzy]

it made a lot more sense in the past

Spoiler: 2e

View attachment 259187

Spoiler: 3.x

Level XP
1st 0
2nd 1,000
3rd 3,000
4th 6,000
5th 10,000
6th 15,000
7th 21,000
8th 28,000
9th 36,000
10th 45,000
11th 55,000
12th 66,000
13th 78,000
14th 91,000
15th 105,000
16th 120,000
17th 136,000
18th 153,000
19th 171,000
20th 190,000

5e just has progression pulled from a hat & it needs to go in favor of better ways

No, it didn't. 5e's progression was specifically tailored to extend what are seen as the "fun levels" while making the other levels go by quicker. It may not be to your liking, but it's a reasonable design.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I am so sick of explaining how off-handed attacks don't include the ability score modifier on damage to brand new players who are already struggling with having separate "to hit" and "damage" bonuses. I am also sick of writing out a second entry under weapon attacks for weapons when used offhanded. I'm also sick of my characters who actually benefit from two weapon fighting (Barbarians and Rogues) being the ones who have to have the nerfed version of it.

Make ability score bonus to damage on offhand attacks the default. Have the fighting style buff it up in some way to keep it a little more viable for the Fighters and Rangers who don't benefit much from it otherwise. Keep everyone from using two-weapon fighting all the time by making sure everyone has other worthwhile uses for their bonus action.

Alternatively just get rid of two-weapon fighting, or lock it entirely behind the fighting style or a feat or whatever. I'm just sick of the system where the characters for whom it actually makes sense have a needlessly complex and weak version of it.

You know, I make it the opposite: does not require a Bonus Action, but you still dont add your ability bonus.

Keeping your idea, the Fighting Style should be replace by the Dual-Wielder feat anyway. Its crap has feat, but as a FS it might be good. And create a better feat for those who want to master dual-wielding ( A second off-hand attack? Two-attacks on AoO? some things like that)