D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Azzy]

The toxic stans. And the gatekeeping management structure which fuels those.

This. So much this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Advantage/Disadvantage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Emphasis mine.

I feel exactly the opposite: alignment shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with a creature's personality or moral outlook. It should be a real force in the universe, as inexorable as Elemental Fire or Shadow. You alignment describes what cosmic morality sign you were born under, what forces have an interest in your fate, and where your soul is going to be drawn upon your death (if you are a mortal). The more tied to cosmic forces a being is (angels and demons, gods, etc...) the more powerful a hold alignment has on the being. The only thing that should determine how a PC acts ina given situation is the Player, but that doesn't mean Alignment can't be an interesting tool in play.

Ugh. Four forces-- law and chaos and good and evil? That's it? No thanks. The universe is way more complex than that, and it deserves more than getting pigeonholed into just those four things.

 

[Reynard]

Ugh. Four forces-- law and chaos and good and evil? That's it? No thanks. The universe is way more complex than that, and it deserves more than getting pigeonholed into just those four things.

Which universe?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which universe?

Any universe that supports the information included in the base game of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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

If they're two different kinds of magic, why should they function the same?

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

To me, that looks like moving the archetypes to subclasses (after all, you'd need 2-3 for barbarians, 2-3 for rangers, 2-3 for paladins, 5+ for fighters, and some number for gishes), so instead of choosing between 12 classes and then 4 subclasses, you're choosing between 4 classes and then 15 subclasses each - which I think would just be more confusing for players since the classes don't tell you much about who your character is.

 

[Mind of tempest]

If they're two different kinds of magic, why should they function the same?

look I have feet and starfish have feet and they are super different but are internally consistent, so why should magic be super similar does it add much?

 

[Reynard]

Any universe that supports the information included in the base game of Dungeons & Dragons.

I don't think THOSE universes are as complex as all that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

look I have feet and starfish have feet and they are super different but are internally consistent, so why should magic be super similar does it add much?

The argument for highly similar magic is internal consistency: if all magic works the same, it's much easier to account for it in the rest of the setting and rules, so you lose potentially a little flexibility in one place for a lot of gains elsewhere. In theory.