* Charbuild depth and complexity. As a player I very much would welcome increased option depth. As a DM, however, I very much wouldn't.
Therefore, the aim should be to make the generation of player characters (but not NPCs or monsters) more intricate, without changing the end numbers (the things that the DM interact with). A player having to keep track of more things is okay. Having the DM have to keep track of more things, or change the way combat rounds are conducted, is not.
My simplest and most direct solution is to split the choice of subclass into two parts, so you choose one subclass at low level (that takes you into middle levels), and then choose a new subclass at middle levels (that takes you all the way to level 20).
Every class thus has two major (subclass-related) decision points: at level 3 and again at level 12.
The first "low" subclass contains nine levels - it starts at level 3 and ends at level 11.
The second "high" subclass (which I'm going to call "prestige class") also contains nine levels - it starts at level 12 and ends at level 20.
A major benefit is how this draws attention to the high levels. No longer can high level abilities be an afterthought. (WotC has far too long gotten away with exactly this!) Now every prestige class needs to justify its existence, not because you wanted something 7 levels earlier, but because the benefits are actually worth it.
Subclasses are still connected to a specific class for the most part (so they can build upon class-specific features), but it would be nice if at least one subclass per class is open to every character of the same category: arcane, divine and martial. That is, there is (at least) one fighter subclass a rogue or paladin could take, one rogue subclass a bard or fighter could take, and so on for "martial" characters. Then one wizard subclass a sorcerer or bard could take, and so on for "arcane" characters. You get the point. Note how bard is both martial and arcane, just like paladin is both divine and martial.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to divorce prestige classes from classes entirely: I can definitely see why a fighter-specific prestige class or warlock-specific prestige class could be a good thing. But again, there needs to be prestige classes that aren't class-specific, and also not even category-specific (arcane, divine, martial), meaning open to all characters.
The point here is: massively increased option space. Instead of making one (1) choice early in your career, you now get to make two, allowing you to reinvent your character halfway through the levels.
Point 1: increased character build depth and complexity.
As a DM I agree--I don't want even more stuff I have to remember, especially when my players
don't. I deal with a lot of new players, or players with problems recalling everything about their characters, so giving them more would not only increase their cognitive load, but mine as well.
Keeping the same (or very close) number of decision points, but offering a bit more options, is fine. But adding more decision points along the way, with more stuff for players to remember, not so much IME.
Point 2: Additional "subclass" (prestige) at level 12.
Considering how few games last long enough to get to this point, or enjoy playing at this power level, this isn't much an issue personally. I've always loved prestige classes and miss them from 5E.
Point 3: Massively increased option space?
One additional choice at 12th level? I don't see that as very massive. IMO what I would rather see is to have 3-4 options for subclass features at their levels, like Totem Barbarian and Hunter Ranger. Of course, trying to keep them balanced is going to be the difficult part IME.
All classes choose subclass at the same level. None of this "you select subclass at level 1, I at level 2, and Bob at level 3" nonsense. The intermixing greatly increases the number of subclasses you can choose from. Instead of maybe four or five (and a few more years later thru splatbooks) you immediately have eight or ten or more to select from. Maybe three or four specific to your class, plus at least one more for every other class in the same category as yours.
DEFINITELY agree! Not only should subclass choice be at the same level, but so should all subclass features. Not 6th for some, 7th for others, and 8th as well, etc.
I also agree that certain subclasses can be generic enough to work across multiple classes.
Then there will be a wide selection of prestige classes at level 12. At least one per class, specific to your class. Maybe two or three more specific to your category. And perhaps four or five prestige classes open to everybody. So maybe eight choices (depending on your class).
Again, during charbuild it's okay to make involved choices. Just as long as the complexity isn't increased for the DM once game play starts. That is, asking the player to keep track of more things, and to give out bonuses in smaller steps, is okay.
Again, I have to disagree that it is okay to give more in terms of absolute choices, but more options per choice (not too much!) is okay. That's just my preference and experience, however.
Changing the way the game is played so it becomes more complicated is not. The game should remain 5E from the perspective of the DM.
You're still adding complexity for the player. Fine in many cases, I'm sure. And if you think your players can deal with that and enjoy it, go for it! I know with most of mine, we're actually moving in the
other direction... less complexity.
* a complete restart on magic item pricing. Let's dump the rarity based pricing. The main advantage was always only how it meant WotC didn't have to put in the hard work. Magic items should be priced solely by how helpful the items are to the D&D adventurer. The aim should be to allow the DM to hand out a sack of gold to each player and be able to reasonably expect each player's choices to be roughly balanced.
I'd move towards general usefulness, not "adventurer" helpful. For example, a local ruler might highly value a divination magic item, but not their ancestor's adamantine plate, if they have no concern of physical danger or war, etc. However, to many adventurers, magical armor and weapons would be much more helpful.
I'm not saying there will always be a large difference or anything, just a different point of view.
Do an editing pass and remove each and every instance of an absolute ability, replacing them with something relative instead.
I'm taking about things where the rule tells the player something will or won't happen, without any provision for DM intervention.
For example, a feat that gives you "you can't be surprised" is utterly ruinous. A feat that grants +5 on relevant tests to avoid surprise, fine. A feat that basically tells the player "this feat shuts down the DM's ability to have certain things happen" is awful for the game.
So the rules need to be trawled for each and every instance of something absolutely happening (or not happening), with no uncertainty or die roll that allows the DM to tell a particular story, or set up a scene in a particular way. Powerful magic items can be guilty of this.
Another DEFINITELY agree!!! I despise the absolute features in 5E. You always get this, you never can have this happen, etc. No, no, no! Getting a +2 or 5 bonus, advantage, etc. helps enough. Speed of play really should affect DM agency.
Magical items, like becoming immune to critical hits, is a bit much. Reducing the amount criticals can do, or requiring the good-old confirmation roll, is good enough. Adamantine armor could simple require a confirmation hit after the natural 20.
I understand the 5E developers wanted to simplify, deathly afraid of repeating the failure that was 4E. But with darkvision they went too far. It's far too easy for a 5E party to be all-darkvision already at level 1. And the "disadvantage on Perception" stuff is incredibly weak-sauce as a deterrent.
I firmly believe low-level adventurers should and need to fear the dark.
Much better to add back low-light vision to the game, and then make darkvision properly good (no Perception disadvantage). Only specific races/species should grant darkvision, so most parties will have at most one such party member.
Agreed again. We removed darkvision from most races, only keeping it for ones really should have it. For a while our other DM added
shadowsight, turning dim light into bright light, but not affecting darkness at all. At this point, we even removed that for now.
I do fine the disadvantage on Perception, especially the -5 to passive Perception, pretty decent however.
Sure I could mention things like redesigning spells and monsters, but it feels premature given how the 2024 edition is only months away.
Yep, a fair number of spells need redesigning, and creatures some as well.
Other bugbears of 5E is the selection of skills, where some skills are just plain useless and much less useful than others, but I'm less certain it's worth the bother coming up with a new set of skills, since it mainly makes the game incompatible with 5E materials. Skills and tool proficiencies are incredibly vague and confusing and should have been redesigned entirely.
Same with weapons and armors. There are a few weapons and armors that are just plain better than the others, which means that an already paltry selection is reduced even more. Basically, every character either has studded leather, breastplate or heavy plate.
Hand use is a carry over from previous editions and far too complicated for a game of 5E's user-friendliness.
Yeah, certain skills, armors, weapons, etc. are nearly always taken over others. A lot of it is intentionally vague, to allow for group "freedom", but creates more issues than it solves IME. Two-Weapon Fighting is the only generic universal bonus action that I can think of unless you allow the overrun and tumble options from the DMG.
TL;DR: make a 5E supplement that rejigs classes, specifically adds cross-mixing of subclasses, and a medium-level second subclass (or prestige class) selection. Then adds proper magic item prices that are based on actual utility, nix absolute abilities, and replaces dark vision with low light vision for races that don't live underground.
Compared to many 5E fixing efforts I've seen (meaning "all of them") this is much more tightly focused on still being 5E. Not just as a marketing slogan, but actually being true. This doesn't spread out. This doesn't add things or replace what isn't broken. We're not publicizing an entirely new PHB. This doesn't lose the feeling of still playing D&D specifically and 5E even more specifically.
But you are adding things... not just more options (which is fine), but more decision points, likely new systems perhaps (skills, etc.)?
Depending on how far you went, it really sort of does become its own thing. Our largest effort produced over 150 pages of homebrew and house-rules, and really wasn't 5E or D&D anymore at that point. 5E-based, D&D-like, certainly.
