D&D 5E What would you like to see in a "revised edition" of 5E?

[koga305]

It's early yet, but now that we have all three core rulebooks and we've had the chance to play with them, we can start to make judgements about things in the rules that could use some revision. Note that I'm not talking about changing major aspects of the edition like bounded accuracy or psuedo-Vancian spellcasting. Rather, I'm curious what smaller rules or player/DM options you think need a little work. In other words, were there to be a D&D 5.5, what, in your opinion, should it include (or leave out)?

My personal list:

• A reorganized DMG. I love the content in this book, but its organization is a mess and often includes some things without rules you'd want to use them (siege weapon damage without rules for castle walls), or omits useful, basic information entirely (there's no discussion on giving out XP).
• A spell-less Ranger option. I heard that this may have been considered for the DMG but was cut - I'd love to see it, and I'd probably use it in my games.
• An additional Sorcerer bloodline. As it stands, the current options are a little specific for those of us who like building Sorcerers.
• Clearer Stealth rules. As it stands, it's sometimes hard to adjudicate hiding without DM fiat.
• A revised Grappler feat! The current version isn't very useful and the design didn't seem to take into account the Grapple/Prone combo. Grappling as a fighting style is pretty fun in 5E, so I'd like to see a better option for it.

 

[delericho]

(c) Copyright Wizards of the Coast 2019.

 

[the Jester]

No. Just no.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm considering this question to be more in line wih a "5.01" I'm not looking for another 0.5 edition, but they have said semi-timely updates to the rules that are worth tuning.

With that said, my #1 thing is Stealth/Hide clarification. I'm completely open to table interpretation and house rulea, and I'm more than okay with the amount of interpretation with all the othet "vague" rules in the PHB and DMG. Stealth is tough, though. I don't think every possible situation needs to be outlined, hut some definintion of terms and a couple examples would go far.

Other than that, the eleven-ish typos I noticed? I think the Core Three fit my desires pretty well.

 

[Sadrik]

I agree we do not need a revised edition but for sure I would like to see updates to rules as per the "living rules" idea WOTC presented.

For me, many of the bugaboos I have are not bugaboos for others. So, I do not expect any changes for my ideas.
Too many hard wired class/race/subclass features
Better spell charts - this is a big one
Better charts in general actually
Fixed halfling art - all other art is very impressive
Tools integrated as skills - two types of skills is nonsensical
Options for high magic settings - perhaps concentration rules revised
Re-level and or errata spells based on feedback
Fix saves (or at least discuss and give options) - too much variance between good and bad saves
Incorporate Hoard of the Dragon Queen PDF content into the Basic rules PDF

 

[Mouseferatu]

(c) Copyright Wizards of the Coast 2019.

You spelled 2029 wrong.

 

[fjw70]

The only thing more I need from the cord books are electronic versions of them. Pdf, proprietary ebook reader, or whatever. I just want to read the core books on my iPad.

 

[DaveDash]

General DM stuff:
I think the CR/encounter building system needs more work. They need to do a revision of all the monsters in the MM based on the DMG guidelines and revise CR accordingly. Either that, or have a completely separate system for handing out experience for players.
More guidelines for building non combat encounters.
More guidelines on how player levels relate to CR, and more guidelines on how spell casting levels can impact CR (like third edition). How do I quickly build a NPC with class levels and assign a CR? Using the monster building guidelines results in very low CR NPC's, I don't think they've given enough thought to how spells and abilities can effect CR.
More quick and easy rules for adding or removing CR's to monsters. The system is clunky. I want a quicker way of adding/removing CR's to elementals, dragons, etc without having to use a fricken spreadsheet.
Templates. What does Undead do to something? What about demon, devil? Incorporeal? I don't want to have to reverse engineer all this from the monsters manual, and some of it is inconsistent.
More random encounter tables than just one. I don't have the time or patience to make my own.

Skills
I think skills need some more fleshing out. Even more so than the additional guidance in the DMG. For example, examples of jumping beyond your jump range, and some suggestions around some DC's. Hiding is obviously a big one that causes a lot of confusion.
More details on passives. Does my Wizard use his passive arcana skill to detect magical traps? Seems silly.

Feats:
Sharpshooter - remove the "ignores cover" rule. Make damage -5/+5
Great Weapon Master - Make damage -5/+5
Crossbow Expert: Remove the ability to attack from melee without disadvantage. Make it clear that you cannot use a shield and gain the additional attack.
Clear up how somatic components work with divine casters. And make part of warcaster a class feature for gish type classes (Eldritch Knight etc).

Spells:
Bless: Make it give a bonus to saves only.
Force cage: Requires concentration. Creatures can get a Dex save to dive out of the way.
Wall of Force: Make it explicit that if something is too big to fit inside naturally, you can't trap it. Dex save to dive out of the way.
Faerie Fire: Make this level 2.
Leomund's Tiny Hut: Change wording so NOTHING can attack in and out of it.
Shape change and True Polymorph need a review.
Etherealness: Spells cast on the ethereal plane disappear when you come back to the prime plane and vice versa.
Contagion: Clear up the rules on when the enemy makes a save, or definitely rework the CON disease to remove the stun on damage.
Ritual casting should add more than 10 minutes.
Familiars should be a once/day thing, or drain the hit point maximum of their owner when they die (healed after a long rest). It's too easy to scout with these things and throw them into dangerous situations because you can summon them every hour or so. The owl's flyby attack also needs a nerf.

Classes:
Sorcerer: Let them have access to all meta magic feats over time, instead of being limited.
Eldritch Knights abilities are pretty meh. There's little point in ever playing one over a multi class Fighter/Arcane Caster until the very top tier of play.

Combat Actions & Skills:
Remove all skill bonuses from combat actions like Grapple/Shove, with expertise this really breaks bounded accuracy, e.g. having +14 to grapple or shove. Grapple/Shove/Etc should be pure Str and Dex. Either that or give us more rules around grappling to give monsters a better chance of being shoved over all the time by Bards.
I feel that the help action is too easily abused. Should be a saving throw in there or something.

 

[guachi]

General DM stuff:
Feats:
Sharpshooter - remove the "ignores cover" rule. Make damage -5/+5
Great Weapon Master - Make damage -5/+5
Crossbow Expert: Remove the ability to attack from melee without disadvantage. Make it clear that you cannot use a shield and gain the additional attack.
Clear up how somatic components work with divine casters. And make part of warcaster a class feature for gish type classes (Eldritch Knight etc).

The -5/+10 feats, when using the -5/+10 part, are marginal enough as it is except when the main stat is maxed for both the guy who has the feat and the guy who doesn't. So level 8 for a fighter or 12 for a ranger (assuming not playing a variant human). If you make it -5/+5 the damage from using the feature is only higher against ACs that aren't relevant. Namely, really high and really low ACs. If you could severly boost your to-hit bonus it would be worthwhile, but in general it would suck to use it.

I do agree on the CE feat about shields and I'm indifferent if they removed the melee feature.

And I agree with your casting suggestions. Maybe allow any casting of a cantrip or reaction spell while wielding something in both hands (like a sword and shield) if one of those things is your focus. It seems totally appropriate that an EK could cast shield while wielding a shield if his shield is his focus. It'd be so cool! Your shield glows with magical energy and you deflect the enemy's blow! Yay!

 

[DaveDash]

The -5/+10 feats, when using the -5/+10 part, are marginal enough as it is except when the main stat is maxed for both the guy who has the feat and the guy who doesn't. So level 8 for a fighter or 12 for a ranger (assuming not playing a variant human). If you make it -5/+5 the damage from using the feature is only higher against ACs that aren't relevant. Namely, really high and really low ACs. If you could severly boost your to-hit bonus it would be worthwhile, but in general it would suck to use it.!

There are tons of ways of boosting your + to hit in game (archery style, bless, etc), and given the design of the game is higher hit chance (so hits count more often), +10 seriously imbalances the game. Especially with Fighters.

Someone over at the official forums as also done the maths and proven it's generally always worth it using the -5/+10 option. Classes like Paladin's get less out of it, and fighting high AC creatures (which there are not many). Fighters are the main benefactor of these feats the more attacks they get.
It gets worse at high levels. I've ran a Fighter 17 with foresight cast on him and he averages about 80 damage per round (without using an action surge or magic items). That basically breaks the game at that point.
Even at lower levels WITH magic items this is potent, I've seen reports of level 10 Fighters doing 100 damage in a round, which basically trivialises the game at that point.

Sharpshooter is the worst offender, since it removes cover penalties and generally synergies with archery style, so at WORST its -3 +10, and quite often in game that -3 penalty can be made to disappear through Bless or other effects (advantage).

My rational for removing the melee feature on Crossbow Expert is it makes melee Fighters basically redundant apart from a role play perspective.
Get in close, do insane damage, stand back, do insane damage. There's no trade off except losing an ability bump, which is basically minor. Melee Fighters though have a huge trade off in that they suck at ranged attacks. Crossbow experts are awesome both in melee AND at range.