D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Warpiglet-7]

Man. One thing. So many good things but everything is related. I would probably look hard at cantrips.

I like playing with resources and survival so running out of spells and arrows is good for me sometimes...

 

[jmartkdr2]

Depends on how the spell system works, I think. If it's a system of loose effects with extensive skinning, it works fine. It's perfectly OK to use the same mechanics to represent different things within the game fiction, which is what you'd want to do in a game with generic classes.

I'd push back by saying: if a cleric is doing something completely different than a wizard in-fiction, they shouldn't use the same mechanics to represent it. Mechanics matter and refluffing has limits.

Much the same way we have different rules for sneak attacks, two-weapon fighting and rage: because they are distinct in fiction, we use distinct mechanics to make sure they feel different. Making all of those regular weapon attacks and describing them differently will only go so far. You could make one really broad fighter class with a ton of feats, stances, and maneuvers to choose from, but you're losing the ease-of-entry benefit of classes if you do so.

So if you want all spellcasters to be one class, then the difference between a cleric and a wizard (and a bard and a druid and warlock and a witch) should essentially be where they went to magic college. Clerics went to magic seminaries. Etc. Spell selection (possibly influenced by archetype) will go a long way, without leaning too hard on refluffing.

On the other hand: most fantasy settings really don't have multiple kinds of magic, unless it was designed specifically for a game in order to provide differing mechanics. That is, it's never (that I've seen) fiction-based. So saying you'd much rather make DnD push people to picking one kind of magic and sticking with that... I can see that and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.

 

[Faolyn]

Literally, unless your fewer encounters last longer then 6-8 normal encounters, it does not begin to do what you are saying it does. "Helps deplete resources", as discussed, is insufficient. "Have completely depleted resources every day and forced 5-10 rounds of cantrips" by the end of the day is the balance point. You use up every single slot from your casters - the casters have still be doing more the the at-wills during every action. You need to take them past that point. That's the class resource recovery balance point they built into 5e.

I don't think that they meant for you to be completely out of resources at the end of any given day. But honestly, I've never had more than a couple of combat encounters in a day and they PCs have often been down to their dregs. It seems balanced to me and the players seem to enjoy it.

And as I said, that's just combat encounters. There's more than just that.

And again, since the fewer longer combats do make those long lasting spells even more powerful, it's even more cantrip time to balance out than in 6-8 encounters/day.

Don't forget that longer combats mean a greater risk of losing concentration on spells or having enemies save against the effects, since most allow a new save at the end of every turn now. If you have casters, the enemies can see them and should be targeting them.

 

[Faolyn]

EDIT: I change my list to more accurately display my idea

1. an arcane spellcaster
2. a magic user, possibly "divine" (not spells, something different)
3. martial fighting class,...
4. and a martial skill based class.

I'd push back by saying: if a cleric is doing something completely different than a wizard in-fiction, they shouldn't use the same mechanics to represent it. Mechanics matter and refluffing has limits.

I could see combining Clerics and Warlocks together into a single class. Have it built more like a warlock--perhaps a few more slots, I dunno, but with additional cleric-style invocations of healing, turning undead, etc. If you get your abilities from a "higher power," then it all works the same; doesn't matter if it's a god, angel, demon, queen of the fey, whatever. Call it a Channeler, 'cause you channel the power.

I saw someone on another thread suggest combining sorcerer and monk. All the powers come from within, and there's a scale running spellcaster to martial; different archetypes would lean more heavily to one side of the scale or the other, with some squarely in the middle. I quite like that. Call it a Mystic.

So the dave2008's list would be more like: fighter, expert, wizard, channeler, mystic.

(Although personally, I'm fine with the classes as they are now.)

 

[Blue]

I don't think that they meant for you to be completely out of resources at the end of any given day. But honestly, I've never had more than a couple of combat encounters in a day and they PCs have often been down to their dregs. It seems balanced to me and the players seem to enjoy it.

An action casting a high level slot on average does more then an action doing an at-will action. If all we have are those, then the classes with the high level slots (and low level slots for utility and defense) will do more than the at-will characters. There's no question about intent "did then mean for you to be completely out of resources", it's entirely math. If you sum a bunch of numbers between 10 and 15, and sum together the same number of 8s, the 10-20s will be higher. It's not until you start adding in the 4s to the top list (having to use cantrips either to conserve slots or because you are out of slots) while the other list is still averaging in 8s, that they start to converge. The measure of that balance is the average efficiency of an action.

For the balance between classes to work out, the average efficiency of an action must balance out by the end of the day. Now, not everyday - some days will (and properly!) favor one side or the other. But if it only favors one side, that's not balanced. And over a statistically approprite longer period, it should balance out if you want the classes to be balanced.

As a side note, I play with several DMs who don't do a lot of encoutners per day. It's definitely fun. But we've wandered away from the at-will classes. We have paladins and barbarians - both whom are hybrids that benefit from short days - and casters.

One DM also doesn't like giving short rests once the action has started - feels it destroys tension and pacing. We don't see monks or warlocks with that DM. Same general reason, about the efficiency of actions being too much lower than the average replacement. (WAR for you sabermetrics folks.)

Don't forget that longer combats mean a greater risk of losing concentration on spells or having enemies save against the effects, since most allow a new save at the end of every turn now. If you have casters, the enemies can see them and should be targeting them.

I won't forget, but it's meaningless. If a spell using a slot X and an action to cast is held for all of a 3 round combat, or is lost in the 4th round of a 8 round combat, there can be no argument that because it was lost in the second cast that it was the less efficient use of the spell. Enemies will be targetting regardless. If it lasts 3 rounds, it lasts 3 rounds. If it has the opportunity to last longer but doesn't, doesn't suddenly make it worse then the one that lasted the entire 3 round combat - neither is useful round 4 onward.

 

[Torquar]

-5/+10

 

[overgeeked]

All non-traditional classes. And by traditional I mean:
Fighter
Mage
Cleric
Rogue

Everything else can be a subclass of these four IMO. Now I guess that would require a reworking of the subclass structure, but I'm still saying that is my one thing!

I feel much the same. Though I take it a step further. Cleric and wizard are just different focused casters. One on damage and control, the other on healing and damage or control. No need for both. And since the cleric is just a fighter/caster, no need for it to be separate. Just make turn undead a spell like any other.

 

[Blue]

-5/+10

I agree with you, but perhaps not for the same reason. If all of the weapon-wielding choices had (exclusive) options that would keep all of them viable, I'd be for that. But ranged and two handed weapon have feats that give more than sword and board and much more than two weapon.

 

[Torquar]

I agree with you, but perhaps not for the same reason. If all of the weapon-wielding choices had (exclusive) options that would keep all of them viable, I'd be for that. But ranged and two handed weapon have feats that give more than sword and board and much more than two weapon.

Similar to my reasons really. I feel the -5/+10 invalidates other fighting styles too much. If all the styles got something similar (including unarmed) it wouldn't be so imbalancing. It's probably less work just to remove it though.

 

[overgeeked]

Can I ask why?

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.