Version 5.25 -- what do you change?

brehobit

Explorer
Probably been asked elsewhere, but if you could change/fix just a handful of 5e things, what would go on your list?
  • There are a handful (5? 6?) feats that are just too good. They probably need to move down a bit in power.
  • I find that the point-buy rules make characters a bit too "samey" even more than 3.5 and pathfinder. I'd introduce some options to start with lower stats and some of the weaker feats as an option. Or even higher stats and a starting (not top 5) feat. I'm in a campaign with that option right now and it's working quite well (also got rid of alt humans). We are more than a bit OP for our level, but it's fun and a bit fragile (we can handle more than one might think given our level, but we also can drop quickly).
  • I'd have some more non-combat powers associated with the various classes. Almost all of the ones that exist are very cool and fun. More please.
Those are pretty non-specific. I do have specific ideas on each (as well as a few other very specific things I'd change like the warlock invocations that let you cast 1 different spell per day and powering up some of the very weak feats).

What would you change?
 

TheCosmicKid

Adventurer
Interesting question. I feel like a lot of the ideas for improving D&D that float around here are more along the lines of heavy overhauls, so restricting our consideration to a humbler "5.25" may actually bring us to some unexplored territory.

Here are a few of my thoughts:
  • Move the subclass choice down to level 1 for most if not all of the classes. The devs made a deliberate design choice in 5E to avoid that where possible, but looking back with a few years' experience of the game I think it was the wrong one.
  • Spread out saving throw effects more between all six of the ability scores, and provide a stronger thematic definition of what each saving throw is for. Making concentration an Int save instead of Con would do a lot all on its own. Get rid of the idea of "strong" and "weak" saving throws; let the ranger be Dex/Con and the monk be Dex/Wis like we all know they ought to be.
  • A lot of people are going to say the opposite, but I say lean into Expertise a little more: give most if not all classes expertise in one thematically appropriate skill (e.g. Arcana for wizards) and let the rogue/bard's niche be more versatility than raw numerical superiority.
  • Stacking advantage and disadvantage, within reason. Obviously I see the virtue in simplicity of not letting them stack. But I also repeatedly see my party's barbarian Reckless Attack while blinded to completely cancel out the disadvantage to attacks while providing no additional advantage to enemy attackers.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
The core would be rests, for e.g.

Breather
A breather is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character performs no more than low-key activity such as reading, talking, eating, drinking or standing watch. If it is interrupted by adventuring activity—fighting, casting spells, marching, or similar—characters must start the rest over to gain any benefit from it.
At the end of a breather, characters can spend Hit Dice to regain hit points.

Short Rest
A breather in which characters sleep or trance can be extended into a short rest of about a day. At the end of that rest, characters who prepare spells can change their lists, and features that can refresh at the end of a short rest, do so. Those who rested in comfort, and eat and drink can recover one level of exhaustion.

Long Rest
A short rest can be extended into a long rest of around three days. A character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of such a rest to gain its benefits, and must sleep or trance each day.
At the end of that rest, characters regain all lost hit points, and they regain spent Hit Dice up to half their total number of them (at least 1); any features they have that can refresh at the end of a long rest, do so. Those who rested in comfort, and eat and drink can recover completely from exhaustion.

Between Rests
When characters finish a rest incorporating a given type, they can’t benefit from another rest of that type until time equal to its duration has passed, e.g. characters finishing a short rest can’t benefit from a breather for an hour.

Sleeping and Trancing, and Armor
Characters who sleep need 8 hours to do so, while those who trance need only 4. Warlocks benefiting from Aspect of the Moon can spend 4 hours reading their Book of Shadows instead of sleeping.
Characters sleeping or trancing in medium or heavy armor aren’t comfortable. At the end of an uncomfortable rest, characters regain only a quarter of spent Hit Dice and don’t reduce exhaustion.
 
Last edited:
@TheCosmicKid "Spread out saving throw effects more between all six of the ability scores, and provide a stronger thematic definition of what each saving throw is for. Making concentration an Int save instead of Con would do a lot all on its own. Get rid of the idea of "strong" and "weak" saving throws; let the ranger be Dex/Con and the monk be Dex/Wis like we all know they ought to be."

I have been wanting this for not years but entire editions. I strongly second it.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
I would go back to the three saves that 3.5e has got (Con, Dex and Wis) if that is possible somehow. Biggest obstacle is the 2 strong save mechanic per character. There would eventually have to be feats so that you can put different stats up for save like 3.5e force of personality or intelligent reflexes.

But maybe this would make Dex an even more uber stat than it is already so maybe that is not so feasible.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
@clearstream "Spread out saving throw effects more between all six of the ability scores, and provide a stronger thematic definition of what each saving throw is for. Making concentration an Int save instead of Con would do a lot all on its own. Get rid of the idea of "strong" and "weak" saving throws; let the ranger be Dex/Con and the monk be Dex/Wis like we all know they ought to be."

I have been wanting this for not years but entire editions. I strongly second it.
Ah funny now, my post looks like a reply to yours although it was not, I posted it at the same time :p

What do you mean with let go of strong and weak saves? If ranger/monk got two strong saves are they better than every other char?
 
"I use acrobatics to jump over the moon"

Dm: didnt work

"I use bluff (deception now) to tell the moon i did it successfully"

Dm: "sigh atropus vouches for you to the crowd that you did indeed do it and youve inadvertantly revealed the campaign's bbeg to the table. Atropus is now texting you and asking why you wont return his calls to become his dark herald and greatest warlock. Atropus also says he thinks hes putting on weight and cant stop eating ben and jerry's which confuses him since he has no mouth."
 
Ah funny now, my post looks like a reply to yours although it was not, I posted it at the same time :p

What do you mean with let go of strong and weak saves? If ranger/monk got two strong saves are they better than every other char?
Ah. The part i strongly second is making there be thematically sensible saving throws that enfranchise all 6 ability stats in the way of having saving throws, as currently not all abilities have saving throws. Im not sure what the other part means either. Also i was intending to replay to thecosmickid not clearstream. I edited it later but before i saw your reply.
 

teitan

Explorer
Not a lot really. I would design it with the idea that all 5E modules and supplements would still be compatible with little to no tweaking, so the system would remain the same. I'd refit the PHB ranger to be a stronger class overall. I'd add popular subclasses from other sources like Xanathar. I'd add a couple new core races to compliment the races already in the PHB. Maybe the Shifter, Aasimar (compliment Tieflings) or Lizardman as they always seem to be popular.

For the Monster Manual I'd tweak CR to be a little cleaner, the math is off.

I'd add NPCs to the DMG including guys like Strahd, Manshoon etc. with NPC rules or more robust monster creation rules. Some of the biggies. Also... Warduke! The generic NPCs are great and all but they don't inspire like a Strahd would. I'd include a gazetteer of Baldur's Gate, Waterdeep or Phandelver. I think the inclusion of Fallcrest in the 4e DMG was a great starter for DM's to launch their campaigns.

I would do a new edition of the SCAG for that default D&D setting and I would do a setting book updating Nentir Vale to 5e and for fun I would add the toy characters like Warduke etc as characters in the setting, nostalgia sure, but let's give them a home. Barring Nentir Vale I would do a full Greyhawk book like the SCAG vs Eberron. Greyhawk has always been less is more.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Ah funny now, my post looks like a reply to yours although it was not, I posted it at the same time :p

What do you mean with let go of strong and weak saves? If ranger/monk got two strong saves are they better than every other char?
Some martials could have two strong saves.

A few classes get better saves later anyway.
 

TheCosmicKid

Adventurer
What do you mean with let go of strong and weak saves? If ranger/monk got two strong saves are they better than every other char?
Literally diversify the types of saving throws that characters make such that Constitution is not (predictably) significantly more common than Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma.
 

dave2008

Hero
What do you mean with let go of strong and weak saves? If ranger/monk got two strong saves are they better than every other char?
I believe the concept is that all saves should have equal value, so their are not strong or weak saves.
 

Quartz

Explorer
1. No racial stat bonus.
2. Change Expertise to a plain +2.
3. Beef up the Fighter, in both combat and social pillars.
4. Make all classes recover abilities on Short Rests.
5. Switch bows to Str. No reloading of crossbows, but enhanced damage.
6. Do @TheCosmicKid 's saving throws.
7. Speaking of saves, PCs get half their Proficiency Bonus in non-proficient saves. (Q.v. 3E where good saves were double bad.)
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Get rid of trance and elven sleep resistance. The -5 +10 feat. Give monsters bonus to all the saves. Bring back death to old age. Add aging effects to some spells.
get pay 1% of all income from all D&D related products, web sites, forums, unofficial art, official art.
 
1. No racial stat bonus.
2. Change Expertise to a plain +2.
3. Beef up the Fighter, in both combat and social pillars.
4. Make all classes recover abilities on Short Rests.
5. Switch bows to Str. No reloading of crossbows, but enhanced damage.
6. Do @TheCosmicKid 's saving throws.
7. Speaking of saves, PCs get half their Proficiency Bonus in non-proficient saves. (Q.v. 3E where good saves were double bad.)
1. Why?
2. What if this were to be applied to three skills instead? I feel like it would make sense from what ive seen in 5e. Ill admit im still relatively n00bish in 5e compared to other editions. So i might be wrong.
3. I agree to this. Especially the combat half. It still suffers from "im literally named fighter but am pathetic as a combative force" syndrome
4. Hmmm
5. I like this
6. I still second this
7. This is a good idea
 
Get rid of trance and elven sleep resistance. The -5 +10 feat. Give monsters bonus to all the saves. Bring back death to old age. Add aging effects to some spells.
get pay 1% of all income from all D&D related products, web sites, forums, unofficial art, official art.
First of all HOLY CRAP! Aparently no one (from my group obviously) saw fit to tell me that 5e has no death from old age! What is that crap? Secondly yes bring in the aging spells. Thirdly i would like to see an age category table including everything from youth to venerable.
 
Last edited:

Coroc

Adventurer
First of all HOLY CRAP! Aparently no one (from my group obviously) saw fit to tell me that 5e has no death from old age! What is that crap? Secondly yes bring in the aging spells. Thirdly i would like to see an age category table including everything from youth to venerable.
Well my players have their maximum natural age predetermined (by me, and unbeknownst to them because I rolled this up in secrecy using a 2e age/race table). It became necessary when they would fight a ghost with a 4d10 years aging effect touch attack, which if they would have been unlucky could well have killed one of them from old age.
 
Well my players have their maximum natural age predetermined (by me, and unbeknownst to them because I rolled this up in secrecy using a 2e age/race table). It became necessary when they would fight a ghost with a 4d10 years aging effect touch attack, which if they would have been unlucky could well have killed one of them from old age.
Max age is still closer or further away depending on starting age though. But yeah. Thats what i did too. In editions that account for it. Does 5e really not have death by old age? Thats so weird.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
Max age is still closer or further away depending on starting age though. But yeah. Thats what i did too. In editions that account for it. Does 5e really not have death by old age? Thats so weird.
I believe it is stated more generally somewhere in the 5e rules, more in a way like "typical humans can live up to about 80 to 90 years" or so, but there is no formal table. Only official aging effect I noticed so far was ghost 1d4 x10 years but by gaze and can be reversed if greater resto is cast within 24 hours. but also here it says nothing about what happens if you age far beyond your natural limit.
 

Advertisement

Top