D&D General Design issues with 5e

[fuindordm]

I love 5e -- it has a lot going for it as a player and as a DM. But the other thread anticipating 6e got me thinking seriously about what design aspects of 5e are actually problems.

So I felt like posting this thought exercise : if I were the lead designer, and not concerned with consensus or backwards compatibility, what would I consider needs changing to improve the game?

1. Not enough distinctiveness in the player experiences offered by the classes. Too much reliance on spells instead of giving each class unique ways to interact with the game and world. Too much overlap in spell lists. Hunter's mark never needed to be a spell, it could have been a skill-based ability triggered by stalking and studying an enemy. Weapon mastery and maneuvers could have been given to fighters only. And so on! I would redesign every core class to make its abilities serve a specific and unique play experience and trajectory, as much as possible.

2. Add back choice and consequences in PC design. It is ok for a species to give an ability score penalty. It is ok if you pick a class ability from a menu that is locked in at least for a whole level, not changeable every long rest. Itbis more than ok if dumping strength cripples you in melee and spending your two high scores is an interesting choice but not an obvious one. The game is more interesting because the PCs have strengths and weaknesses, and need to rely on one another.

3. Surprise needs to be dangerous. If it is practically consequence-free, then you've removed one of the major functions of the exploration pillar.

4. Beef up exploration. A solid chapter in the DMG with many examples of exploration/survival challenges. Cover dungeon, wilderness, and urban exploration. Explainnhow to run them with skills, new subsystems or both, and how some class abilities can change the nature of these challenges without avoiding them altogether. For example, maybe when a ranger fails a tracking roll, they get a "no AND" result instead of a simple no. It is OK if some classes can access tasks that others can't, or obtain unique results.

5. Cut down on the number of abilities acquired at higher levels. It's better to upgrade an ability, especially if it is already one if the class' core and mechanically unique ones.

I could probably think of a couple of others but I think all of the above would make the game more fun for more kinds of players, and justify a new edition without changing the basic framework much.

 

[aco175]

If I was the man, I would change a lot of little things and a few big things like make classes distinct and not so many of them. I would not go to just 3 with the magic, fighter, skill man, but have less than 10 that can work. I would tone down magic from doing everything and limit it to just a few classes. Although my multiclassing system would allow you to mc in to another class as the subclass to get some stuff. Spells might top off at 5th to 7th level.

Not sure if I would cut levels to just 1-10 or 12ish. Most people do not go to 20 but some like it. I'm sure that is the same with all the other things, but I'm the man making it here.

 

[payn]

The skill system. Its really the one big design element I dislike about 5E. I know they wanted it simple so that it could be stripped out in a modular sense. It definitely fits that bill, however, there is no way to dial it up. BA makes that a bit of a challenge, which is tough because I do like BA as well. Anything that allows you to adjust skills instead of set it at first level and not look back would be better. Id probably strip proficiency out, and add in some way to bump skills as you level.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

saving throws. jesus christ these are a mess in 5e. too few proficiencies are given out for most classes and even the ones that scale don't scale enough towards higher levels. combine that with enemy saves getting ridiculous while your DCs scale super slowly and some saves being practically useless with others being incredibly powerful and...eugh. the numbers i think could be solved just by ripping pf2e's proficiency bonuses (+2/4/6/8), maybe adding another tier (+10), and then recalibrating everything related to prof bonus to use that (or your tier for prof bonus per rest abilities, either could work). that'd also help with @payn's problem with skills by giving a way to have different training levels for each skill. the problem of some saves being useless and others being too good could be solved in a couple different ways - you could crunch the saves back into fort/ret/will (with maybe the 4e option of having your highest of 2 different abilities determine which is used for each save if you want), or you could reexamine every effect that calls for a save and determine what save they should call for (with possibly the option of allowing for a choice of saves if it'd make sense - e.g. tanking a fireball with con vs dodging it with dex). that'd be something for testing, i think.

feats and asis sharing a character building resource. having to choose between following the expected math and getting a cool ability is just kinda trash.

 

[payn]

saving throws. jesus christ these are a mess in 5e. too few proficiencies are given out for most classes and even the ones that scale don't scale enough towards higher levels. combine that with enemy saves getting ridiculous while your DCs scale super slowly and some saves being practically useless with others being incredibly powerful and...eugh. the numbers i think could be solved just by ripping pf2e's proficiency bonuses (+2/4/6/8), maybe adding another tier (+10), and then recalibrating everything related to prof bonus to use that (or your tier for prof bonus per rest abilities, either could work). that'd also help with @payn's problem with skills by giving a way to have different training levels for each skill. the problem of some saves being useless and others being too good could be solved in a couple different ways - you could crunch the saves back into fort/ret/will (with maybe the 4e option of having your highest of 2 different abilities determine which is used for each save if you want), or you could reexamine every effect that calls for a save and determine what save they should call for (with possibly the option of allowing for a choice of saves if it'd make sense - e.g. tanking a fireball with con vs dodging it with dex). that'd be something for testing, i think.

feats and asis sharing a character building resource. having to choose between following the expected math and getting a cool ability is just kinda trash.

While I know it would be a ton of work, id rather seen spells and effects evened out among the scores making all of them good to have. My issue with 4E pick x or Y system is basically everyone has the same saves.

 

[Stormonu]

If I wasn't constrained by backwards compatibility, I'd be burned at the stake for the changes I'd make.

Remove classes entirely and just have suggested "starting packages" (and maybe "paths") that mimic selecting a class; abilities become options/feats you purchase with XP and have prerequisites, so multiclassing goes the way of the dodo.

Expand the skill system and have Expertise/Mastery subskills that cover narrow uses of a skill that you can specialize in (like Athletics - Lift). Turn Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, Spellcasting and Armor into skills. Saves would be skills as well. Expertise isn't primarily about increasing your numbers, but also unlocks minor abilities and synergies with other skills/abilities (for example, Expertise in Athletics - Lift might give you the benefit of Powerful Build).

Greatly curb HP accumulation, giving PCs a decent starting pool and a HD every other level or stop at 9th/10th level. Vastly reduce monster HP. Get away from blow-by-blow combat and make each hit significant on either side. Make action riders easier to achieve so that marking off hp numbers isn't the primary activity in the fight - movement, conditions, environment should have a much greater impact.

Reduce the number of actual spells, but open up the ability to add slight customizations (both descriptive and mechanical) so two spellcasters can choose the same spells but they operate quite differently (in effect and appearance; say like a Fire Mage vs. a Shadowcaster). Bring some danger back to spellcasting so that solving problems by mundane means is preferable, but spells are useful when a speedy (but costly) resolution is needed or if mundane means fail.

But since I suspect most folks want that "this feels like D&D and not some other game altogether" I'd just want to do a clean-up of 5E with half the DM-tracking headaches and the bumps smoothed out.

 

[Corinnguard]

If I wasn't constrained by backwards compatibility, I'd be burned at the stake for the changes I'd make.

Remove classes entirely and just have suggested "starting packages" (and maybe "paths") that mimic selecting a class; abilities become options/feats you purchase with XP and have prerequisites, so multiclassing goes the way of the dodo.

Expand the skill system and have Expertise/Mastery subskills that cover narrow uses of a skill that you can specialize in (like Athletics - Lift). Turn Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, Spellcasting and Armor into skills. Saves would be skills as well. Expertise isn't primarily about increasing your numbers, but also unlocks minor abilities and synergies with other skills/abilities (for example, Expertise in Athletics - Lift might give you the benefit of Powerful Build).

Greatly curb HP accumulation, giving PCs a decent starting pool and a HD every other level or stop at 9th/10th level. Vastly reduce monster HP. Get away from blow-by-blow combat and make each hit significant on either side. Make action riders easier to achieve so that marking off hp numbers isn't the primary activity in the fight - movement, conditions, environment should have a much greater impact.

Reduce the number of actual spells, but open up the ability to add slight customizations (both descriptive and mechanical) so two spellcasters can choose the same spells but they operate quite differently (in effect and appearance; say like a Fire Mage vs. a Shadowcaster). Bring some danger back to spellcasting so that solving problems by mundane means is preferable, but spells are useful when a speedy (but costly) resolution is needed or if mundane means fail.

But since I suspect most folks want that "this feels like D&D and not some other game altogether" I'd just want to do a clean-up of 5E with half the DM-tracking headaches and the bumps smoothed out.

D&D as a Skill-based RPG rather than a Class-based RPG?

If Melee and Ranged combat were skills, then there ought to be skill specialties that cover each of the weapon groups. Have it where a combatant can be good with those in the swords group but not with those in the axe group.

 

[500 Toads]

gestures in the direction of Pathfinder 2E

You could actually preserve certain D&D 5E-ish notions like bounded accuracy if you used PF2e w/ the optional "Proficiency Without Level" rules; keep the focus on heroic adventuring by dropping the fluffier less-adventuring-focused archetypes and skill feats; drop the rune progression via the optional "Automatic Bonus Progression" rules; if you don't mind the balance implications, use D&D 5E's prepared casting / spontaneous casting systems as well as treating everything as signature spells (heightening at will) etc rather than using PF2e's closer-to-Vancian system.... and, of course, ignore the "wounded" rules if you have no problem with "yo-yo healing", and disallow/limit Treat Wounds resource-less healing if you still want hit point attrition to be a significant problem when not pressed for time.


That said, if you're going to pick one major, compatibility-breaking thing from it... given how often people complain about character customization options while others complain of balancing issues from multiclassing shenanigans -- it'd be using a class feat / skill feat system rather than hardlocking class features to specific choices at specific levels. This, in turn, would enable PF2e-style archetype-based multiclassing, which (1) allows a great deal of customization, (2) still lets you keep full progression in your class for base features (e.g. spell slot progression), (3) forces a choice between taking class feats or archetype feats, and (4) makes it easier to restrict or delay class features for those who didn't take it as their actual class -- i.e. a class feature may be only available at a higher level or potentially not at all for somebody who only gained access via archetype.