D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

[TwoSix]

he is working on his own game(s), not D&D. Those seem to go to level 10, with this being their progression to higher levels, so I assume we will see the others eventually, but obviously the mage needs a solution more than the fighter does, so that was the starting point

 

[Horwath]

5e is my preferred D&D as well, but it's because it's already a compromise of the crunch of 3e and the simplicity of BECMI. (Though I think 5.24 pushes things a little closer to 3e then Basic). That said, it's not perfect and there are things I would want done differently, but I find the more you stray from 5e's core to what you feel would fix your personal bugbears, the more you end up moving towards one of the two extremes. Hence my "second favorite" line; it's not perfect but it's downsides don't take away enough to ruin it. Whereas I don't feel I could seriously play either 3e or Basic. 3e is too fiddly for me now and Basic doesn't have enough meat to keep me interested.

5E just need some more simple feats for people that want it simple.

+1 ASI as normal, then:

1: +3 weapon mastery: buff of current, 1 mastery for a feat is really bad

2: +1 fighting style

3: +1 origin feat

4: +3 cantrips(any class). cantrips are simple

5: +1 attack for Attack action, requires 12th level.

6: +2d6 sneak attack damage

7: +1 crit range, requires level 8

8: heal max from your HDs, halve your effective exhaustion level(round down). extra HDs (d6) equal to your prof bonus.

 

[Remathilis]

I am in the same boat, but 5e does not hit my personal sweet spot anyway, I want a somewhat simpler version, and grittier. Still the best D&D edition though

I generally like the complexity of 5e, and most of my complaints are some legacy systems (pact magic, wild shape, subclass progression) being left when the opportunity to fix them was given. But overall I don't think there is any edition I would play for a long period of time but this one and almost no edition I'd rather DM.

 

[Zardnaar]

Outclassed at control? what? wizards are THE control class. They should be outclassed at blasting, because damage dealing should be done by other classes, but control (and utility) is their bread and butter.

I would agree that spell levels are unnecessary complex. Have one resource without the levels, just spellpoints, mana, whatever. Higher spells cost more. Maybe give spells character level requirements.

Twin spell 1 sorcerery point. Command, hold person, hold monster, tashas, hideous laughter etc. Heighten spell as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I fear this would mean very few subclasses...

Which, given the extreme paucity of option flexibility in 5e as it is, axing that many subclasses would probably kill the game. Not even I want that.

I don't say this because I disagree with your core point. More that this reveals one of the faults of 5e--which, as with a lot of things in 5e (and 3e!), took years of people playing the game to realize "oh, that's...not actually super great, is it?"

Well, my intention would be that when someone says "ooh, we need a shadow sorcerer," the immediate response is "if we don't have three shadow spells available per level, let's develop enough extras to fill out the spell list." (Three is obviously a bare minimum, but it's better than the zero that many specialist spellcasters have when it comes to appropriate flavors at any given level.)

 

[Zardnaar]

Fortunately, re: the bolded, the crowd of people who play D&D, and the crowd of people who demand that D&D be what it has so-called "always" been (read: what it was in 3rd edition), grow ever more distant from one another as the years pass and repeated attempts to re-do 3e "right" peel off further segments of the 3e-fan crowd.

Some stuck with 3.x (hell, some stuck with 3.0!) Some stuck with PF1e. Some went to PF2e. Some will--almost surely--stick with various versions of 5.x, or the myriad of 5e-with-serial-numbers-filed-off games, whether original or spurred by the OGL-invalidation debacle.

By comparison, the people for whom 5e is the only game they've ever known--and thus they have no special attachment to anything predating 5e's design--are a growing bloc, and a lot of them recognize issues in the design. I think your confidence that D&D is so "locked in design wise" is, if not misplaced precisely, then at least reflecting design trends from over a decade ago--pushing two. By the time 6e rolls around, because you KNOW a 6e will eventually roll around, the vast majority of D&D players will be those who started with 5e and know the problems 5e deals with. They're going to want things which address that, not things which address "tradition" that started before they were even alive, by anywhere between three and thirty years.

Or they want a fixed 5E or a heavy rewrite.

6E could also be a 5.75 who knows.

They may not accept a drastically different 6E. Hell they may not accept expanded use of things 5.5 does eg greater magic resistance.

I think the days of more complicated D&D are done though. 3E or 4E type wont be returning imho.

If they did a drastic revision and the players accepted it I suspect they would simplify it.

Hell I wouldn't mind control spells being nuked from orbit with a saving throw overhaul (OSR, 4E take your pick). Even than might be to much.

They've gotten used to high damage hp bloat easy mode.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I know WotC wouldn't want to split the fans but I think D&D could use a new "Basic (BECMI)" system. Trim the fat. Simplify.

Like there is regular ultra crunch Shadowrun and then there is Shadowrun Anarchy (new 2E!) which is still SR but loses the ultra crunch and plays 500% better.

On one hand thats like twice the products they would have to make but on the other, why not try to take some of the OSR money?

I'm a firm believer that a Fighter doesn't need 16 powers and abilities from class (and subclass!) alone. Tack on race, class, background, feats etc etc etc.

But whatever. I'll keep playing Daggerheart and OSR stuff for now.

 

[Zardnaar]

All I will say, then, is that I have a very high degree of skepticism that such fixes would actually make a difference, when the stated goal is to leave a Wizard's power functionally unchanged.

Fighters are already pretty good at fighting. They aren't the absolute megabeast BEST ATTACKERS EVAR that we were promised*†‡, but they can do some good damage. Getting to do good damage...from a few paces away? Not exactly going to address the gap between "I can attack four times with the Attack action" and "I can rewrite reality once per day."

*Not literally promised§
†"best" is technically true, From A Certain Point Of View
‡every class needs to be balanced§, but some need to be more balanced§ than others
§This is an Official Term Of Art From The Wizards Of The Coast. Definitions will vary.

New fighters might be best lvl 1-20.

Barbarian and rangers. Very front loaded.
Paladins takes a while to ramp up.

Figher. Front loaded and best later on, best defenses.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I know WotC wouldn't want to split the fans but I think D&D could use a new "Basic (BECMI)" system. Trim the fat. Simplify.

Keep buying (and playing) Heroes of the Borderlands, kids, and I wouldn't bet against more support for that trimmed down format. It can't support high level play very easily, but more content is very doable along with maybe fourth and fifth level play.

 

[Zardnaar]

As apparently the only person on earth who has had a campaign go 1st to 20 (or higher) in 2e*, 3e, and 5e, I pity the rest of you who do not know the glory of high level play.

*One 2e campaign started at 20ish and went to upper demigod using the original WotC ttrpg product "The Primal Order".

I've done it. It sucks for the DM.

I can do it yes. Is it fun no.

Lvl 15 5E
20+BECMI
19+ 2E
Up to 30 3E.