Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7315802" data-attributes="member: 6788934">5e is great, but it isn't perfect. What are the design choices you find most problematic, and how (in a broad sense) would you fix them?  Here's my list, in order of egregiousness:The skill system - I like rule simplicity, but a simple binary system is just not good enough. Proficiency should be tiered. I'd have 4 proficiency levels - non-proficient (as raw), amateur (half prof. bonus), proficient (as raw), and expert (proficiency bonus + 3). I also think they really bungled the skills tied to Int and Wis. I'd revise those skills in particular. Int - Medicine, Machinery, Folklore, Arcana, and Tactics. Investigation wasn't well thought out - as far as Int's role is concerned, it should be baked into the individual knowledge skills. So, investigation should involve a combination of subject matter expertise (Int) combined with perceptiveness and insight (Wis). Tactics is a new skill that gives Int something useful pertaining to combat that any and all characters can benefit from (i.e., Int is no longer "as soon as someone else is good at it I don't have to be"). Wis - Composure (for social grace and to counter fear/madness), Insight, Focus, Nursing (for both humanoids and animals), Survival  - Perception becomes an entirely passive mechanic and is no longer a skillToo dump stat oriented - the attributes (other than perhaps Dex) do not do enough outside of class abilities. Some people like this; I don't - I think it makes attributes dull and pointless, and it leads to lack of character diversity within a given class. I'd tie more mechanics to each in an attempt to make all attributes at least somewhat attractive for all classes. Int would grant bonus proficiencies along with Tactics as a useful combat-oriented skill. Charisma would be baked into the Inspiration mechanic as well as Reknown. Encumbrance is too fiddly, so I'd give all weapons and armor a minimum strength requirement for proficiency (this also helps circumvent the paradoxical and hyper-unrealistic "8 strength Longbow master" problem we see in the core rules)Rules for small races - Small race rules should be relative, not absolute. A small race in an environment with nothing but small races should not have special rules applied to them. So I would not have rules like "can't use two handed weapons". I would instead have written more comprehensive size rules that are only applied when interacting with targets of different size categories. For example, having Str based attacks do half damage against medium or larger targets, or granting AC bonus against larger targets. Scaling on basic items - Items like Basic Poison and Healing potions should possess a modicum of scaling with level. Not a lot, mind you, but some. A 10th level character using a basic healing potion should healed for moderately more HP than a 1st level character using a basic healing potion. I'd revise the formulas for all these items. Poison would probably damage based on target level/CR, scaling from 1d4 up to 2d6 or something. No official scholarly cleric variant - I've always found the lack of a prominent wizardly cleric in D&D weird and offputting, IMO, there needs to be an official variant that turns clerics into d6 HD robe wearers with a lot of scholarly knowledge and a spell list as good as the wizard's. No rules for "multiclassing" subclasses - This is a pretty obvious thing that really shouldn't have been overlooked. Subclasses were a great concept, but they should have been designed in a way that allowed for branching and going back within a class to built more complex characters.4 Attacks for fighters - it feels ridiculous with Action surge. I'd replace fighter's level 20 ability with something equally potent but less conceptually absurd, and ideally something that has a more versatile role, such as a boon for tank fighters.</blockquote>

Verification