D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[overgeeked]

What single thing would I eliminate?

Probably the whole system. Then start over from scratch, looking for subsystem modularity (to better enable DMs to kitbash to suit their own games) and a more old-school sense of danger and (potential) lethality.

B/X for life!

 

[77IM]

Bonus actions.

There is no one single rule that confuses players (even experienced players) more than bonus actions.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, but see that's the game. In absolutely ANY case where dice are rolled a single stupid roll can change the course of events. Whether it be a player's hit points, attributes or an attack roll, or damage roll, failed or successful skill check. Once you start removing those elements (especially for player 'comfort'), you might as well just be sitting around the table shooting the breeze, because you're not playing a game anymore.

All or nothing, baby!

That's fine and dandy when it's a quick game, but if I'm supposed to play this character for monthes on end, I'd rather my dice roll only have immediate consequences, not means I'll be having a bad time for hours and hours of my life. I don't need that naughty word.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would say Bounded Accuracy so character can actually feel like they progress again, but that's not really one thing so much as a design philosophy.

So now I'm torn between the 'optional' part of Feats and the attendant offer of ASI in place of customization or encumbrance... because F encumbrance and any kind of inventory management minigame..

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not the person you asked, but...the three main classes represent distinct archetypes. The fighter, the thief, the spellcaster. The rest are just slight variations or combinations of those three. The cleric is a fighter/caster focused on damage and healing. The ranger is a fighter/thief focused on the wilderness. The barbarian is a very angry fighter with extra hit points and less armor. The bard is a fighter/magic-user/thief. The paladin is a more heavily fighter-based fighter/caster than the cleric. The druid is a nature caster. The warlock and sorcerer are just different mechanics to be a caster. The artificer is a more caster-focused fighter/caster. At a very real level they’re all just minor variations on those main three.

In that case: yeah. If all magic in the setting works the same, in-fiction, than having only one spellcasting class makes sense. And it would be odd to have more than three classes in such a setting.

But if there are multiple different kinds of magic, shoving them all into one class is both more complex and less flexible than having different classes for each kind of magic.

(edge case: the two kind of magic are opposites, like light and dark magic, don't need two classes. But arcane and divine as described in the various PHBs aren't opposites; they're orthogonal to each other.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

It is hard to know without giving the design concept a try. However, flexibility is the low hanging fruit. If a subclass is just a bunch of options you can mix and match them to get the precise type of character you want. It would be more complex, though you could easy Champion or Ranger or Brute builds of preselected or narrowed options to provide some simplicity.

Right, it can work. I don't deny that. But how would it be better, if you need to re-add subclasses and a lot of new features just to not lose flexibility, than what is the advantage of a more complex way to achieve the same flexibility? What do you hope to gain?

 

[Helldritch]

I would go for the nonTolkien races. Because in general, players have a hard time to play a Tolkien race in way that it is not just a human with a rubber mask, imagine when they are playing a race that is supposed to have an alien mindset...

The closest second is the full healing on long rest.

The third contender would be the HP bloat.

Otherwise no complaint.

 

[tetrasodium]

Lots of good things I agree with already suggested by people so I'll suggest "eliminate the move from flat DR & flat resist values that differently targets more weaker attacks different from fewer but bigger attacks to the 5e 50% for both"

 

[overgeeked]

In that case: yeah. If all magic in the setting works the same, in-fiction, than having only one spellcasting class makes sense. And it would be odd to have more than three classes in such a setting.

But if there are multiple different kinds of magic, shoving them all into one class is both more complex and less flexible than having different classes for each kind of magic.

(edge case: the two kind of magic are opposites, like light and dark magic, don't need two classes. But arcane and divine as described in the various PHBs aren't opposites; they're orthogonal to each other.)

Sure. But they function in the mechanics exactly the same. So having them be separate classes is a waste of space.

 

[dave2008]

Right, it can work. I don't deny that. But how would it be better, if you need to re-add subclasses and a lot of new features just to not lose flexibility, than what is the advantage of a more complex way to achieve the same flexibility? What do you hope to gain?

You are misunderstanding, I think. The flexibility would be inherent to the design. Subclasses would not add flexibility, but limit it for those who want a simpler option. The flexibility would make it better, for some. Not everyone likes flexibility.

For example: A fighter would have 600+ options spread out over 20 levels or whatever. If that is to much for a player (it would be for me), you select the "Champion" build or archtype and that limits your choices to 20 over the life of the character.