D&D 5E CHALLENGE: Change one thing about 5e

[Flamestrike]

If i understand what Uchawi said. I think it'd be very interesting to allow all martial classes to have maneuvers. I'd worry about balance with classes like the monk though. They seem to have pretty crazy choices when it comes to combat as is.

I bemoan the fact that martial adept only grants a single die. It should be two.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Problem: Players keep getting mad that D&D doesn't do what they want how they want it in their "best case scenario" RPG, and that WotC refuses to fix the issue.

Solution: Every other RPG that gets made is branded "Dungeons & Dragons", so that when other players say to that person 'If you prefer such and such rules that are done better in Game X, why don't you just go play Game X?'... the person can switch to Game X and have them still happily playing D&D.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Problem
Weapons are boring. Look at the Glaive and the Halberd - they are the exact same weapon. There are minimal differences between the Battle Axe and Longsword (price and weight). There are some obvious "best choices" for most characters.

Solution
I'd put in a few more options, drawing heavily from 2nd Edition. For example, variable melee reach categories:

• Short: You can attack only targets in front of you, or in the flank you threaten. Cannot be used for opportunity.
• Melee: You can attack anyone within five feet of you.
• Reach: You can attack anyone within ten feet of you.

Further, I'd look at strength vs. dexterity weapons with the "Savage" property:

• Savage: When using a savage weapon, you make only one attack per round. If you have more then one attack, or could use a bonus action to attack, you cannot do this. Instead, you roll multiple damage dice when you hit. Take the number of your attacks and roll damage plus bonuses for each attack you would normally get. This applies, currently, to any weapon which is both two-handed and heavy.

Finally, put speed factors on weapons - so that heavy powerful weapons slow down the character in initiative.. but when they hit you feel it!

 

[Jester David]

It's that thing called HONESTY.

There's being honest and then there's being mean. You can be unflinchingly honest. Hard but fair. But still be polite and respectful.
I can be pretty hard on D&D/ WotC and Paizo/ Pathfinder. But I try not to get personal.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

7. Finally, if a PC wants to take multiple actions on their turn, or multiple special actions, let them. Each action is at a -5 to the attack roll, check or the saving throw DC, per additional action. An action that doesn't require an attack or check, or impose a save, now requires a DC 10 ability check (also at -5) using an ability score selected by the DM; on a failure, they can't take that action. This uses a -5 modifier instead of disadvantage so that it stacks (I don't want multiple actions to be easier when you are exhausted and blind). I don't expect novice/casual players to understand this rule. It's there for the when they say, "I want to run past all the goblins, stab the chief in the head, and then push him into the pit!" The DM can explain how they can do all that this round at a massive -10 penalty, or they can do less and have a better chance to succeed; maybe just run up this round and stab next round?

I love the idea and agree that it addresses a real low-experience play issue. However, I'd adjust it a bit. In my experience, players at this level of rules understanding are also prone to not appreciating how bad a -5 penalty is, so I see them potentially accepting this penalty over and over again and end up blowing multiple turns. Instead of a penalty, then, I'd just look back to 4E: give 'em an action point or two. "You can do a big turn now, but then you can't do it later" is more grokkable than assessing the risk of rolling at -5.

 

[Corpsetaker]

There's being honest and then there's being mean. You can be unflinchingly honest. Hard but fair. But still be polite and respectful.
I can be pretty hard on D&D/ WotC and Paizo/ Pathfinder. But I try not to get personal.

They are a company, not our best mate. I pay money for their services so if I don't like something then I am brutally honest and have every right to be.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

They are a company, not our best mate. I pay money for their services so if I don't like something then I am brutally honest and have every right to be.

But there are people behind the company. And unlike a huge, faceless corporation, the creative people involved in that business are highly interactive and involved in the various fan communities. As someone who has crippling anxiety and self-esteem issues, I can tell you now that criticising someone's creative work can definitely have an impact.

Having said that, Great Weapon Master & Sharpshooter suck

 

[Jester David]

They are a company, not our best mate. I pay money for their services so if I don't like something then I am brutally honest and have every right to be.

Being honest in a hard but fair ways is being a critic.
Being honest in a mean and personal way is being a bully.

It does not matter if you're being a bully to a person or a group or a faceless multinational corporation. A bully is a bully.

I'm happy to be a critic, and a harsh critic at times. But when I drift into the territory of being a bully it means I have has failed as a critic, as a fan, and as human being.

 

[dave2008]

It's that thing called HONESTY.

What?
Whining, negativity, and snark are not honesty. The are window dressings that turn honesty into petty bickering. Honesty stands on it own and whining, negativity, and snark can only lessen its power.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I would ditch subclasses and use feats as the basis for customization...

(and since most of us are breaking the rules here)

... or vice-versa.