D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[mamba]

Yes and the game is better for it. The player playing the fighter likes it more, finds it more immersive and more fun and the player playing the Wizard likes it more, finds it more immersive and more fun. Players of all types are more attracted and by more product.

It works for everyone.

I completely disagree with this, I am not even sure you actually agree with this...

even if I did pay attention to class imbalance, the imbalance at the table due to ability rolls, poor build choices or simply bad in game choices would render that concern about class balance irrelevant in play.

Changing the Warlock to a long rest mechanic, making the Druid Wild more restrictive, Sneak attack once a round, Divine Smite once a round, not rolling all dice on a crit, nerfing twin spell, making Hex and Eldritch Blast Warlock abilities instead of spells, getting rid of Cantrip formulas for the Wizard, making Find Familiar stat blocks instead of real creature stats.

I am sure this is not everything, but it is everything I can think of right now. All of those things were playtested and were unpopular and I believe all of them except the nerf to Twin Spell were reversed in later playtests.

I much preferred everyone to be on long rest, but that has nothing to do with power at all and everything with things being synchronized. The Wizard and Fighter are both on long rest and these are our examples for strong and weak after all... The Druid Wildshape also has nothing to do with power, and I liked that change better as well, I am noticing a pattern here

Isn't Smite still once per round? I lost interest in the playtest halfway through when they threw out anything of interest they had proposed until then...

 

[mamba]

Improving the bad spells to give casters more good option is a good thing IMO

yeah, we are at exact opposites about this it seems

 

[ECMO3]

I completely disagree with this, I am not even sure you actually agree with this...

I strongly believe it is true.

I have never seen anyone at the table that dislikes the idea that one character (usually a caster) is more powerful and I can say conclusively that I have seen many examples where players liked this and even vocalized such at the table.

I much preferred everyone to be on long rest, but that has nothing to do with power at all and everything with things being synchronized. The Wizard and Fighter are both on long rest and these are our examples for strong and weak after all... The Druid Wildshape also has nothing to do with power, and I liked that change better as well, I am noticing a pattern here

With the Druid now you can choose your form to give yourself specific abilities suitable to the situation. It is much more powerful and versatile than a standard stat block

The changes to Warlock were specifically made to balance the class.

Isn't Smite still once per round?

Maybe, but it is not liked.

 

[ECMO3]

yeah, we are at exact opposites about this it seems

Making the bad spells good such that casters choose a good spell over an OP spell will make them weaker not stronger.

For example, Witchbolt is a terrible spell and I have only seen one player take it in 10 years of 5E. If you make it a good spell, equal to say "good" spells like Thunderwave or Burning Hands it would be middle of the road and would not make the class any stronger. To pull this thread more though, if they really like the thematics and for that reason take "improved Witchbolt" instead of Shield their character is weaker than it would have been.

 

[mamba]

Making the bad spells good such that casters choose a good spell over an OP spell will make them weaker not stronger.

why not also rein in the OP spells, I would better balance from both sides, not just power creep the lower 70% or so

 

[CapnZapp]

why not also rein in the OP spells, I would better balance from both sides, not just power creep the lower 70% or so

Exactly.

The sky blue (or gold, or whatever) spells are just as bad for the game as are deep red spells.

 

[CapnZapp]

A different thing I don't think 2024 D&D will accomplish, or even attempt:

Make sure spells don't do the specialist's job better than the specialist.

Just to give a single example: if a martial character (such as a Rogue) wants to become a master sneaker, the obviously superior approach is to get hold of the Pass without Trace spell. There's NOTHING the heroes can do without magic that comes even close to "everybody gets +10 Stealth, and just to rub it in, you leave no tracks - so the only way to track you is... even more magic!"

Trying to become the best sneaker in the land through skill alone doesn't hold a candle to the old guy who can't even find his own glasses casting a spell. Sure, your Stealth can be ten steps higher than his is without the spell, but the Dumbledore guy grants that to everybody in the party and you don't.

Magic users being able to do stuff that's plain physically impossible, sure. Nobody's expecting the Fighter to be able to work out so hard at the gym he can now flap his arms and fly. Or teleport. Or, for that matter, turn into Ernie the Giant Chicken.

But magic being clearly better than what martial characters' supposed to be good at? Get outta here.

If a Rogue (maybe not ANY Rogue, but a specialized one) could reliably fool or circumvent magical defenses (appropriate to her level) the game would be better for everybody. Detecting and then bypassing traps, avoiding being noticed by detection spells, defeating arcane locks, and such.

Same with a Barbarian (or strength-based Fighter). Sheer strength and pure might should be able to shatter magical walls and defenses, even at the expense of tiring or bleeding out the martial champion. And I'm not talking hacking away at a Wall of Stone for minutes to make a hole. A level 20 Fighter should be able to punch a Wall of Force so hard it completely shatters. Instantly.

Likewise with Rangers and Druids. Their ability to f*ck you up in the forest should not be a matter of casting three or four spells, basically because the game easily allows the minmaxing city-slicking warlock or rogue to pick these spells anyway.

Spells enabling the party to compensate for having a weak link? Sure, that just means more fun at the table.

If there were a spell that granted a baseline Stealth score to the clumsy Paladin, then the story where the heroes sneak into the castle can proceed as intended, especially if the DM uses group skill checks. This doesn't steal the Rogue's thunder. In fact, if there are rules for "spectacular success" of some sort, the Rogue can even compensate for one clumsy party member by rolling stratospherically well herself.

This would IMHO make the game much more fun for everybody than "we will simply have to stop for the day to let the wizard sleep in order to memorize the win button spell tomorrow".

 

[Chalice]

It should have been:

A mid- to low-crunch mix of the best parts of B/X and 5e (in particular), but refined on both counts, further emphasising backgrounds, while shedding such chaff as skills and feats altogether.

Oh, and with an open license for just about everything, a la 3e, to better allow all the creators out there to shine, and perhaps make a little money for their troubles.

And, Fighter types (along with other non-casters) would be truly just as capable and impressive and fun/interesting to play as casters.

 

[ezo]

A different thing I don't think 2024 D&D will accomplish, or even attempt:

Make sure spells don't do the specialist's job better than the specialist.

Yep! Should be goal #1.

Just to give a single example: if a martial character (such as a Rogue) wants to become a master sneaker, the obviously superior approach is to get hold of the Pass without Trace spell. There's NOTHING the heroes can do without magic that comes even close to "everybody gets +10 Stealth, and just to rub it in, you leave no tracks - so the only way to track you is... even more magic!"

Trying to become the best sneaker in the land through skill alone doesn't hold a candle to the old guy who can't even find his own glasses casting a spell. Sure, your Stealth can be ten steps higher than his is without the spell, but the Dumbledore guy grants that to everybody in the party and you don't.

Yep (#2)! A +10 to Stealth, in addition to other benefits (no tracks, virtually, unlimited targets, long duration) is, frankly, insane. When you consider most creatures have a passive Perception of 10, it makes you (and others) virtually undetectable.

Magic users being able to do stuff that's plain physically impossible, sure. Nobody's expecting the Fighter to be able to work out so hard at the gym he can now flap his arms and fly. Or teleport. Or, for that matter, turn into Ernie the Giant Chicken.

But magic being clearly better than what martial characters' supposed to be good at? Get outta here.

Yep (#3)!

If a Rogue (maybe not ANY Rogue, but a specialized one) could reliably fool or circumvent magical defenses (appropriate to her level) the game would be better for everybody. Detecting and then bypassing traps, avoiding being noticed by detection spells, defeating arcane locks, and such.

Same with a Barbarian (or strength-based Fighter). Sheer strength and pure might should be able to shatter magical walls and defenses, even at the expense of tiring or bleeding out the martial champion. And I'm not talking hacking away at a Wall of Stone for minutes to make a hole. A level 20 Fighter should be able to punch a Wall of Force so hard it completely shatters. Instantly.

Need I say it again?

Totally. IMO a martial PC at twice the level a caster needs to be to cast a spells should have a reasonable chance of defeating it. For example, arcane lock is 2nd level, so a wizard must be 3rd level to cast it; therefore a rogue of 6th level (twice 3rd) should be able to disable the lock.

At 6th level, a rogue with Expertise in thieves' tools and DEX 20 would be +11 to disable a DC 25 (15 + 10 for arcane lock) lock would need a 14 or better, so 35% chance. Not bad, really, but many DMs would rule a failure means no further attempts, so why the PC shouldn't be automatically able to disarm it, the chances should be better IMO.

Now, if arcane lock imposed disadvantage instead, then magic such as enchance ability would effectively cancel the penalty. Regardless, the expert lock-picker above would have about a 72% chance of by-passing the magically-enhanced lock (with disadvantage) at DC 15 (not 25). A non-expert, say at +7, would have a 42% chance or so, compared to the 65% they would normally have vs. a DC 15 lock. So, the spell (as disadvantage) would decrease the thief's chances by over 20%.

Not to bad for a 2nd-level spell that lasts indefinitely otherwise...

Spells like pass without trace and arcane lock with +10 bumps are too strong IMO.

Likewise with Rangers and Druids. Their ability to f*ck you up in the forest should not be a matter of casting three or four spells, basically because the game easily allows the minmaxing city-slicking warlock or rogue to pick these spells anyway.

Or overcome those spells the Rangers and Druids might use...

Spells enabling the party to compensate for having a weak link? Sure, that just means more fun at the table.

If there were a spell that granted a baseline Stealth score to the clumsy Paladin, then the story where the heroes sneak into the castle can proceed as intended, especially if the DM uses group skill checks. This doesn't steal the Rogue's thunder. In fact, if there are rules for "spectacular success" of some sort, the Rogue can even compensate for one clumsy party member by rolling stratospherically well herself.

Again, a spell like enhance ability is a great example. Such a spell can remove the Stealth disadvantage for heavy armor, or help others without proficiency or decent Dex scores. It only affects one PC as a 2nd-level spell, but is a bit harsh to require concentration IMO.

As for group checks, a group only need half successes to succeed as a group. This is a way where the expert Rogue or skilled Ranger, Bard, etc. CAN help the clumsy or inept party member. The theory is the group succeeds because those who excel help those to might faulter.

This would IMHO make the game much more fun for everybody than "we will simply have to stop for the day to let the wizard sleep in order to memorize the win button spell tomorrow".

One final YEP!

 

[ECMO3]

why not also rein in the OP spells, I would better balance from both sides, not just power creep the lower 70% or so

Because players like the OP spells. No one wants a weaker Spirit Guardians, Spike Growth, Fear or Counterspell. The biggest complaints about Counterspell I've heard from players is the back-door nerf WOTC did by replacing spells in monster stat blocks with things that are not spells. Players complained about this multiple times at tables I play on.

I don't think players even want a weaker Shield or Simulacrum which are the worst offenders. Sheild is so good you have characters, often martial characters, taking a 1-level dip to get it.

Also when it comes to balance and player preferences, I think there are far, far more players playing martials that want to be able to get an OP Shield spell on a 1-level multiclass than there are players playing martials but dislike how powerful Shield is. So it is not just people playing full casters that you are going to upset or nerf by making powerful spells less powerful.