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

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Here comes my semi-atomic take:

Have more subclasses that are wildly different from each other - the entire point being to absolutely minimize the people only taking a class for 'dip' levels.

I feel, from my decades of experiences, that if you do that, you're killing something that has always been "D&D" but isn't something so much in modern gaming: classes. People have always argued about the class breakdown for Conan, who's a pretty prototypical adventurer, but I think the thing with Conan as an adventurer is it wasn't 'classes' as much as -- I fought in slave pits, and then I met up with my homey the archer and my girlfriend, and we broke into places by stealth-climbing, and then this weird dude with a snake cult killed my girlfriend... and that's just the movie version (No idea what class gets bonuses to punching camels though)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Very true... it all depends on how thin we slice the mechanics.

We wouldn't say 'Spellcasting' is equal to a feat of course. But a specific spell... or even one mechanic within a spell... could equal a standard feat in mechanical heft.

This is why I have no problem sometimes giving PC an extra mechanical bit or bob as a reward for "character growth". It could be a free feat, it could be a class mechanic from another class that is like a free feat, or it could be a magic item whose mechanical ability is like or duplicates a feat or class feature.

So long as the mechanical ability given out does not unbalance the PC compared to the rest of the group... I'll give out those features no questions asked.

I have no objection to that in principal--but I'm not really a fan of that sort of ad-hoc GM decision; I'd much rather have the process baked in and regulated in-system.

 

[Yaarel]

So the notion of a general uptick in complexity is not in the cards. What "might" actually be something worth considering is injecting little bits of complexity in the areas of greatest weakness for 5e. There has been talks about the encounter building model for example, which we all know is just not that great at actually estimating challenge. So perhaps a slightly more complex (but more accurate) model would be worth the complexity cost. But you can't have it across the board, that won't fly....so what are some key areas that a bit more complexity might be worth the cost

That is a good way to look at it. Complexity is a "cost", and there is a budget for it, for how much can be tolerated.

Judging by the popularity of 5e, 5e has probably spent its complexity budget, and spent it reasonably well for details that are clear and meaningful, and useful.

2024 does increase a complexity in one place. It splits the earlier "race" mechanic into a fantasy biological "species" versus a culturally learned "background". This distinction is useful for worldbuilding and personalizing a character concept, and it has plenty of design space to satisfy. It also helps avert some of the reallife uglier implications that were systemically part of "race".

The split simplifies the background design space by repurposing the abilities for it, where narratively experience and improves it similar to the later improvements during advancement. It also repurposes the extra feat at level 1 that is popular in several official setting, but halves these now backgroud feats for the sake of balance and friendliness. It also mitigates concerns about 2014 characters being too fragile at the lowest tier. The reorganization and salient clarity helps minimize the total amount of complexity even while significantly developing the 2014 background design space.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just a reference on how everything in PF2 is a feat.

Which IMO is how 3e should have been progressed.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah i do think it would be cleaner to just have minor actions, have a few defaults that are really minor and innocuous (like +5 feet speed or something), and then add to those options when it makes sense.

I’d probably add a few basic actions to supplement martial combat, offhand attack already exists and BA potions are a pretty common house rule I believe, I might also add
Quickstep: +10ft movement.
Target: bonus to-hit on the next attack you make to a called enemy (possible bonuses if trained in insight, perception or investigation).
Study: an actual mechanical handle for ‘INT check to see what you know about this creature’ so that that might actually get used
Guard: bonus AC until the start of your next turn, bigger bonus if wearing a shield.
Dip Weapon: apply poison/similar to a weapon or piece of ammo for the next attack you make with it.
Block: take up additional space, prevents(or at least challenges with a check) enemies from moving through the two adjacent squares next to you.

 

[unknowable]

Things I want to see but know I won't:

• Expertise scaling fixed so it doesn't break bounded accuracy like it does currently.
• Check vs DC standardised instead of opposed rolls outside of iniative.
• Return to flat jump distances based on strength score.
• Fixed invisible condition so it doesn't somehow grant advantage on iniative rolls even if one or more combatants can see/sense the target fully.
• Less ubiquitous dark vision.
• Hero spells (like fireball) and hero monsters (like dragons) that intentionally over perform mathematically, rebalanced to being what their spell level/CR say they are.
• Decoupled spell lists from class, 3 was too few imo. 4 is a better goal.
• Standardised subclass progression (this being scrapped to keep old books selling / "valuable" was a horrible move)
• Death recovery attrition mechanic (to stifle popcorn healing)
• Better HD mechanic that is more effective at creating a longer low level adventuring day.
• Short rest rework.
• Decoupled feats from ASI, no half asi even if there is a feat attached.
• Ability scores replaced by ability modifiers.
• Removal of legendary resistance (yes it needs something to replace it, but it is a bad mechanic imo.)
• Remove counterspell
• Separate Rituals from normal spells and make new rituals, maybe make some that can be cast as spells but only in high level slots.

And honestly enabling high level play balance would be nice... at least a semblance of it... but... realistically since they don't have a mathematician on staff and base design on NEEDING over a 70% minimum approval rate on surveys... never happening. It is like asking the audience to a game like LoL to balance the game, not specially knowledgeable people, just the every day players.

And yes I have PF2e for balanced play that goes to high levels... but it is also gonzo high magic fantasy superheros play and doesn't well suit more traditional D&D style sandbox adventures like 5e does, plus it runs slower because it has so many more moving pieces in combat. Where as I can comfortably get through 8 combats and a bunch of RP in a weeknight 5e session (3h); I am lucky to get 3-4 combats in a combat only pf2e session of the same length, not bashing it... just what it is.

 

[Stalker0]

• Fixed invisible condition so it doesn't somehow grant advantage on iniative rolls even if one or more combatants can

still hopeful on this one. the playtests did include new invisibility rules which have their own set of problems, but wotc at least recognizes invisibility and hiding needs adjustment, so hopefully the internal playtests will cook up something good.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If simplicity uber alles was the name of the game, we should be getting by with ten or twelve page ultralite games, not this "three books with around a thousand pages between them" nonsense.

I actually feel insulted by that German Phrase. Actually it is close to illegal* in Germany. Because it was Nazi language. Please refrain from that.

Also. I think calling 5e braindead is also insulting for people who actually do think it is not too simple, but just right...

*not illegal, but frowned upon.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For WOTC to develop a DM apprentice program so that new DMs can learn from the more experienced ones??

 

[Yaarel]

I have no objection to that in principal--but I'm not really a fan of that sort of ad-hoc GM decision; I'd much rather have the process baked in and regulated in-system.

The DM has total control over the magic items.

If some of these magic items are not actually "items" but instead the emergence of an innate ability, that is fine with me.

The only difference is, the innate ability is harder to pass up, remove once taken, and cant be sold off to acquire something else instead. So, the player needs to commit to the innate ability as a character concept. The DM needs to make sure the innate ability is something that player actually wants.

But when the player does want something, "treasure" is a great way to do it.