D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Mind of tempest]

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.

no, if all spells work the same is good.
most of the difference between magic is how you relate to it, divine you working for a being, arcane your harnessing something they should have some rules to reflect it.

 

[dave2008]

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.

What is or is not confusing is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some would find it more confusing, others would not.

However, you asked what the benefit was: it would be, I believe, flexibility. That doesn't mean their isn't some cost to that flexibility. I find the cost worth the benefit (theoretically), but you do not. That is OK and natural. Nothing you've stated changes that belief for me.

 

[auburn2]

Just a thread for "how would you change 5E" -- expect the explicit rule is that you only get to alter it by elimination, and you can only eliminate one element (although that may be broadly defined, as you will see in my example ).

For my part, I think I would get rid of non-human PC races. All of them. Maybe it is my players but no one I know actually plays a non human in a decidedly alien way. It's all rubber foreheads and free minor crunch enhancements. I think he world I would build in D&D would be much better with only human PCs, AND the image in my head of the PCs would likely be closer to what they are supposed to be from the players' perspectives.

What ONE THING would you remove from 5E?

Bards

 

[auburn2]

Clerics.

This is actually what my first instict told me to say.

 

[auburn2]

If you don't, the PCs just blow through the encounters. The game is designed for its use and it really throws things off if you don't. I

I know they claim that, but virtually none of the WOTC published campaigns follow this. I find it hard to believe that any table does.

 

[auburn2]

Problem with the bonus action is it just so uneven. Some classes get too many things to do with their bonus action other classes don't get any bonus action at all. It needed to have some sort of balance

This is what is great about them IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I know they claim that, but virtually none of the WOTC published campaigns follow this. I find it hard to believe that any table does.

I don't play the published campaigns, so I don't know what they do. I'm talking from personal experience.

 

[overgeeked]

I know they claim that, but virtually none of the WOTC published campaigns follow this. I find it hard to believe that any table does.

There are times when I think the designers are not playing the same game they’re designing and publishing.

 

[Maxperson]

There are times when I think the designers are not playing the same game they’re designing and publishing.

Yeah. I've heard that they overstock their adventures with more magic items than recommended as well.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What is or is not confusing is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some would find it more confusing, others would not.

However, you asked what the benefit was: it would be, I believe, flexibility. That doesn't mean their isn't some cost to that flexibility. I find the cost worth the benefit (theoretically), but you do not. That is OK and natural. Nothing you've stated changes that belief for me.

Okay, I think I get it - you want to increase flexibility by making features more 'portable'. That's a benefit.

I asked in the first place because I see a lot of people who want this but very few who articulate why.