D&D 5E What most needs revision for the (hypothetical) 50th anniversary core books?

[ECMO3]

I've been on the internet for 29 years now, and I've seen countless edition changes for various games and countless updates to TV shows and reboots and so on.

Just curious, where did you go to access the internet in 1992?

But even then... you look at previous edition changes, and it looks in all cases like most people picked up the new edition, despite any amount of grousing.

I don't think this is true. If we look at history I think opposite is actually true more often than not.

When we went from 1E to 2E most did not pick it up, as a matter of fact it bankrupted TSR. I was playing then and everyone I knew kept playing 1E, perhaps with a few rules taken from 2E, but they did not transition and most importantly they did not purchase the books.

4E again did not bring the 3E players along, most of them either kept playing 3E or moved to pathfinder, enough that pathfinder actually outsold D&D some years during this era..

5E brought in millions of new players, that is where the growth has been although it did bring in people who were still playing 1E and 3E.

I think if we look at history, what happened 5E is unique, not the norm.

 

[Yaarel]

Just curious, where did you go to access the internet in 1992?

dial-ups and bulletin boards?

 

[ECMO3]

The other area of frequent complaint, at least on the internet, is some variation of it is too bland, too simplistic, not enough options, not made for "real gamers," etc. And this isn't only coming from diehards. My group is comprised of casual Gen-Xers, most of whom, when we got our group together in 2008, hadn't played since college or 2E. For the most part, they really liked 4E and I know one, at least, hasn't been as struck with 5E because of the reduction in tactical options. On the internet I see some complain about the overall failure to make good on the whole modular option/complexity dial thing, or keeping the scope of D&D too narrow (FR campaign after FR campaign).

I don't think this is widespread for two reasons. First 4E was largely a failure, that goes against the idea that there are a lot of people who really liked it. By most accounts, and most importanly in terms of sales it appears people really disliked it.

Second 4E is still around, you can still buy the books and there is still a ton of content online. If large numbers view it as superior to 5E they would be playing it instead of 5E.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's assume that we will, indeed, see revised core rulebooks in 2024, a proverbial "5.5." Let's also assume that it won't be more than 5.5, and maybe more like 5.3-5.4...the key being backwards compatible.

The question: What aspect of the core rules do you feel is most in need of revision? If you could ask the folks at WotC to revise one area, what would it be?

For myself, I've played 5E too sporadically over the years to feel like I know the system inside and out enough to offer a super educated opinion, but my first thought is classes. Maybe I'm biased because ranger is my favorite, or at least default, class, but I'd like to see them strengthen some of the weaker ones (ranger, monk, sorcerer), and without requiring a subclass to do so.

It is probably too large of a change for even 5.5, but I'd like to see how a slightly less bounded accuracy would look, with Proficiency Bonus going up to +10 at 20th level rather than +6. I like bounded accuracy, but wonder if it is too bounded. It just strikes me as odd that a 1st level fighter with 20 STR has a base +7 to hit, while a 20th level fighter with 20 STR is only +11. I know: class features, feats and magic items and all that. But, still.

You?

I think we will see an overhaul of travel, but that will be the only true overhaul.

I think we will see new versions of the ranger features that suck, that will be competitive with the Tasha’s replacements. Like, Natural Explorer that gives bonus spells, for instance. Changes that make it so that the PHB feature is actually equal to the optional replacement for it.


I wouldn’t be surprised to see a revision of the 4 Elements Monk, and I’d expect to see some light revisions to the Druid and Sorcerer.

The biggest change I wouldn’t be surprised by would be changing Two Weapon Fighting to not require the bonus action.

 

[ECMO3]

The biggest change I wouldn’t be surprised by would be changing Two Weapon Fighting to not require the bonus action.

I think that would be a bit much as a core rule change. Alternatively, I could see this as the fighting style and changing the rules so everyone gets their ability increase to damage with TWF.

The problem with giving everyone a free attack with TWF is that is a huge increase for Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Hexblades and Bladesingers and would make those characters substantially more powerful in combat than they currently are as they have substantial bonus actions they could now take that they couldn't do if using TWF. It would also make sword and board even weaker than they currently are and would nerf the sharpshooter feat since thrown weapon fighting would be strictly better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rename the Monk "Mystic" and change Ki points to Spell Slots which they secretly are (among other changes to de-Orientailize them)

Why switch to spell slots? I agree with renaming the class and some of its features, but ki works very very well as it is, other than it running out in games with few short rests, which is easy to fix by adding that they can regain them by spending 10 minutes in meditation (while the Wizard casts a ritual spell, perhaps) a couple times a day.

 

[Parmandur]

Why switch to spell slots? I agree with renaming the class and some of its features, but ki works very very well as it is, other than it running out in games with few short rests, which is easy to fix by adding that they can regain them by spending 10 minutes in meditation (while the Wizard casts a ritual spell, perhaps) a couple times a day.

Mechanically, yes, but my main concern would be to defluff the mechanical structure. Been watching the Asians Represent stuff lately, and the treatment of "Ki" in D&D is super problematic: the Manuvers of the Battle Master, Rage of the Barbarian, or Spells of the Wizard or Cleric can just as easily be interpreted as "Ki," in an authentic take on the concept, and the Ghettoization into one Class along with some other Orientsliat tropes is something that I would want to change. Making the abilities key off of Slots would help make the design relation between Monks and other Classes more apparent, but using "Spell Points" would also work fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that would be a bit much as a core rule change. Alternatively, I could see this as the fighting style and changing the rules so everyone gets their ability increase to damage with TWF.

That could work. Or make it how the Dual Wielder feat works, though that would suck for people that don’t want feats.

The problem with giving everyone a free attack with TWF is that is a huge increase for Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Hexblades and Bladesingers and would make those characters substantially more powerful in combat than they currently are as they have substantial bonus actions they could now take that they couldn't do if using TWF. It would also make sword and board even weaker than they currently are and would nerf the sharpshooter feat since thrown weapon fighting would be strictly better.

So, Sharpshooter and Sword and Board wouldn’t be any weaker. If they buff the Ranger, it doesn’t make the Fighter or Paladin weaker.

That aside, Hexblade is the only ones being boosted that I’d be worried about. The rest are already not in the top tier of damage dealing. I’m not sure this would make the TWF Hexblade as good as the EB-AB Hexblade, either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mechanically, yes, but my main concern would be to defluff the mechanical structure. Been watching the Asians Represent stuff lately, and the treatment of "Ki" in D&D is super problematic: the Manuvers of the Battle Master, Rage of the Barbarian, or Spells of the Wizard or Cleric can just as easily be interpreted as "Ki," in an authentic take on the concept, and the Ghettoization into one Class along with some other Orientsliat tropes is something that I would want to change. Making the abilities key off of Slots would help make the design relation between Monks and other Classes more apparent, but using "Spell Points" would also work fine.

Hmm. I agree with the general goal, but I think it is better as it is, with a different name. I would really hate for it to be “spell points”, though. Even leaning into the “Mystic”, the non-Spellcasting subclasses are not a spellcaster, conceptually. They should live in the same space as battle masters, having a resource pool that is not spell-related, representing focus, stamina, and determination. The mystic can also connect to other living things with their spirit, spending Focus to do things like stun a creature.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Mechanically, yes, but my main concern would be to defluff the mechanical structure. Been watching the Asians Represent stuff lately, and the treatment of "Ki" in D&D is super problematic: the Manuvers of the Battle Master, Rage of the Barbarian, or Spells of the Wizard or Cleric can just as easily be interpreted as "Ki," in an authentic take on the concept, and the Ghettoization into one Class along with some other Orientsliat tropes is something that I would want to change. Making the abilities key off of Slots would help make the design relation between Monks and other Classes more apparent, but using "Spell Points" would also work fine.

Why "mystic" tho?
That doesn't sound much better and doesn't give a good idea what the class is
Mystic sounds too occult. Like a spiritualist or a medium

Why not something like "brawler?"