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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Yet it had the opposite effect IME.

Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.

The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they finally get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.

As to the OP, there is way too much stuff for me to even consider listing it all...

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Stunning strike. It's basically a spammable save or lose+complete disable with a subtrivial cost that can be trivially replenished even if soammed too much. Neat idea sure, but terrible execution

The worst part is it is overpowered without actually being fun to a lot of Monk players. It's too good not to do, but it has about the lowest (or at least the least predictable) chance of success of any of the things they spend Ki on.

 

[MockingBird]

Get rid of the ardlings, just don't add then into a core book, a splat book they will fit right in

 

[gametaku]

Ability Scores and Ability Modifiers being different. Supposedly this is confusing to new players. Instead, it should only be the ability modifier. Point Buy and Standard Array can be modified, and for rolling the dice
options could be 1d8-4, 2d4 - 4, or 1d6 - 2 depending on the range of scores desired.

Races - it's long past time this happened. Maybe for compatibility have a note that old races could be used instead of whatever new option replaces them.

Hit Points - To many players and DM's think they represent purely physical damage. Also, from various post characters are supposed to be killed and run away and that because less likely to happen as hit points are increased.

Players - Really how many problems are caused by players existing. Whether it's what they do or how the DM's interacts with the players, or WOTC putting out content players want to use. Eliminating players fixes the vast majority of the issues D&D has. And any it doesn't fix the DM can just create a new rule and not worry about the players would react.

 

[Azzy]

Yet it had the opposite effect IME.

Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.

The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they finally get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.

As to the OP, there is way too much stuff for me to even consider listing it all...

YMMV, I'm just the messenger.

 

[Li Shenron]

They should remove the haters.

Actually... they will!

If you keep playing 5e, you can bet all those people will move onto hating 6e and not bother you anymore

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Amen, hell just get rid of those 3 types on weapons period. Its like the 6 saving throws, they don't come up enough to be worth the mechanics of putting them in the game.

And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.

Yup. Physical damage could be a general damage type for weapons. For skeletons and oozes, just add their very specific vulnerability in the entry of the relevant trait.

Or, you know, make B/S/P actually relevant in more than 3 statblocks!

and that's the same answer to most things in this thread: if its only pertinent 3% of the time, remove it or make it pertinent 33% of the time!

Charming spells could be moved to Charisma saves, forced movement spells could be moved to Strength saves, illusions and maze could be Intelligence saves instead of checks!

 

[jasper]

Get rid of the ardlings, just don't add then into a core book, a splat book they will fit right in

momomom momm mom bird said the wordy dirty word dirt. a dirty word. "SPAT" send him to yard and make them play outside for 3 hours.

 

[Reynard]

and that's the same answer to most things in this thread: if its only pertinent 3% of the time, remove it or make it pertinent 33% of the time!

I endorse this view.