D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[RoughCoronet0]

I’m probably an outlier in these forums in that I do like a majority of the direction the revised PhB material is going and am excited to get my hands on the book in order to use the new rules and improved mechanics. However, there is at least on thing I’m upset isn’t going to be making it through to the revised book.

While I’m not as upset as some other that they are forgoing the uniformed subclass progression for all classes, I still annoyed at keeping the old subclass progression of the Bard, Rogue, and Sorcerer. I don’t understand why the Bard only gets three levels of subclass features while the others get 4 or more (I think it’s the fighter that gets the most at 5). I also don’t understand why the Rogue doesn’t get their second subclass feature until 9th level and the Sorcerer doesn’t get their third subclass feature until 14th level, 8 levels after their second one. These are the classes I really think benefited the most from the uniform level progression, and I’m probably going to rework them a little so they better match the rest of the classes subclass progression.

 

[Stalker0]

In my experience, the quest for simplicity leads to an unacceptable reduction in options, and in interesting, logical versions of those options.

So part of the benefit (and also challenge) of a game like dnd is its open nature. Unlike a video or board game with extremely codified rules, dnd has the built in tenent that “anything is possible”.

If we look at 3e to 5e, it’s clear that the rules to support certain activities have been reduced, there are not nearly the amount of rules ti cover x,y,z activity. And there are two ways to see that:

1) I can now do less (the rules no longer empower me)
2) I can do more (the rules no longer restrict me).

I personally used to be in camp 1, but 4e shifted my mindset to camp 2. When I dmed 4e, no matter how many times I told my players (just tell me what you want ti do, get crazy)…they would constantly come back to the power sheet to figure out “what they could do”. I saw how the codified rules (though well intentioned), were limiting players options in practice.

When my same group started playing 5e, I saw an immediate improvement in improvisation and creative play.

Then the recent test was level up, which has more codified options. We finished a whole campaign in level up, and interestingly enough even my most crunchy players came back and said “you know what, the new crunch feels like more trouble than it’s worth”

So I’m firmly in camp 2 now. At then of the day, a rules system for a role playing game should promote creative play (because otherwise I can just play a very nice video game and do things much faster and easier).

So when people say “there are less options”, I often now think “there is more room for creative play”

 

[mellored]

true, but CON is just so easy to remove because no one actually cares for CON.
There are no skills tied to it, you get to roll a CON save here and there and HP bonus is a passive once per level thing.

we always use point buy,
we have had STR, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA from 8 to 20 in various combinations on various PCs, but CON is:
14,14,14,14,14,14,12?!,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,16!??!,14,14,14,14........

I've seen a 20 Dex / 20 Con Barbarian/Rogue once.
22 AC and no stealth penalty, resistance (bear), and multi-attack.

But overall I agree, Con would be fairly easy to remove. Especially since there is also Toughness for anyone who would otherwise boost Con.

 

[mellored]

I’m probably an outlier in these forums in that I do like a majority of the direction the revised PhB material is going and am excited to get my hands on the book in order to use the new rules and improved mechanics.

The majority of people like the majority of the direction.

But saying "I agree" is not a long conversation. It's the disagreements that generates posts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So part of the benefit (and also challenge) of a game like dnd is its open nature. Unlike a video or board game with extremely codified rules, dnd has the built in tenent that “anything is possible”.

If we look at 3e to 5e, it’s clear that the rules to support certain activities have been reduced, there are not nearly the amount of rules ti cover x,y,z activity. And there are two ways to see that:

1) I can now do less (the rules no longer empower me)
2) I can do more (the rules no longer restrict me).

I personally used to be in camp 1, but 4e shifted my mindset to camp 2. When I dmed 4e, no matter how many times I told my players (just tell me what you want ti do, get crazy)…they would constantly come back to the power sheet to figure out “what they could do”. I saw how the codified rules (though well intentioned), were limiting players options in practice.

When my same group started playing 5e, I saw an immediate improvement in improvisation and creative play.

Then the recent test was level up, which has more codified options. We finished a whole campaign in level up, and interestingly enough even my most crunchy players came back and said “you know what, the new crunch feels like more trouble than it’s worth”

So I’m firmly in camp 2 now. At then of the day, a rules system for a role playing game should promote creative play (because otherwise I can just play a very nice video game and do things much faster and easier).

So when people say “there are less options”, I often now think “there is more room for creative play”

That is not my preference, or my experience. My players and I like the increased crunch.

 

[SteveC]

I don't think we're really going to see any substantial rules changes outside of the class updates. Not that the classes aren't getting a ton of changes. What I would like to say is a real definition of what an "adventuring day" looks like in terms of encounters/short rests/long rests. Depending on your party build, this can be very important, or not important at all. Some standardization would be great.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, popularity is what you get if you follow good marketing principles. It has nothing to do with design directly.

No. But indirectly it helps.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I've seen a 20 Dex / 20 Con Barbarian/Rogue once.
22 AC and no stealth penalty, resistance (bear), and multi-attack.

But overall I agree, Con would be fairly easy to remove. Especially since there is also Toughness for anyone who would otherwise boost Con.

Why force the design of being tough to be limited to only be available via a single feat choice? Its fine to have more than one vector to increase HP. Also, the game has "fortitude"-style saves tied to Con. It would be weird for Strength to define that value. We'd have to start changing ability score names, and making D&D look and feel less like D&D.

That said, I like that a tanky PC can be tougher by increasing Constitution. Ability score generation allows this investment to increase toughness. There is a big variance available that can be leaned into. Str+Con Fighters and Barbarians are fun!

If a table is concerned about requiring a baseline Con/HP/Saves for survivability, how about making sure every character just has a set minimum Con of 14?

• Point Buy: Increase Point-Buy by 7 to 34 points, but 7 of those have to be in Constitution, kicking it up to 14 as a base, and you can't go lower. The tanks can still invest in Con if they wish.
• Rolling: Set Constitution to 14, and roll for just the other 5 ability scores.
• Don't change Con at all, rather just change how many HP your HD give you at each level after 1. This makes the character more survivable even if their Con isn't great, but tank HP totals can get even higher if they invest in Con.
  • d12 gives 11hp per level
  • d10 gives 9hp per level
  • d8 gives 7hp per level
  • d6 gives 5hp per level

I believe that Con is a valuable ability score choice. Some people want it high for survivability, and others are fine gambling to put that higher ability score elsewhere to increase their effectiveness in other ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. But indirectly it helps.

Disagree. It's just a thing with no intrinsic value.

 

[Yaarel]

true, but CON is just so easy to remove because no one actually cares for CON.
There are no skills tied to it, you get to roll a CON save here and there and HP bonus is a passive once per level thing.

we always use point buy,
we have had STR, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA from 8 to 20 in various combinations on various PCs, but CON is:
14,14,14,14,14,14,12?!,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,16!??!,14,14,14,14........

What if?

What if the species defines Constitution? Then only a Feat or an Illness can modify Constitution.

The species design space with its budget of benefits defines how much space is given to Constitution.