D&D 5E (2014) What would you like to see in a "revised edition" of 5E?

[aramis erak]

PDFs, ©January 2015...

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

My preference would have to had the -5/+10 should have just been handled like Mark: as a combat option in the DMG that everyone could access when it made sense perhaps as a part of a Called Shot system (take the ten damage or one of these effects where appropriate). The current feats that use the -5/+10 could receive a +1 Ability Score Bonus instead or be spun off into a fighting style or other class/subclass feature.

 

[Li Shenron]

As much as I have my own criticisms, I don't want any revision ever.

What I would really appreciate, is a reprint of the PHB and DMG with as many pages as the MM, with the additional space used to incorporate more character material (first and foremost, more subclasses and particularly more Clerical domains and Rogue schemes) and additional rules (e.g. the battlesystem when it's ready). If they made the MM 350 pages, they could do the same with the PHB and DMG!

While doing so, make better charts and incorporate errata corrige, and it will be perfect.

 

[Psikerlord#]

My preference would have to had the -5/+10 should have just been handled like Mark: as a combat option in the DMG that everyone could access when it made sense perhaps as a part of a Called Shot system (take the ten damage or one of these effects where appropriate). The current feats that use the -5/+10 could receive a +1 Ability Score Bonus instead or be spun off into a fighting style or other class/subclass feature.

An excellent idea. Hmm, in fact I dont see why you couldnt houserule called shots exactly like this, feats notwithstanding.

Revision wise, I would remove passive perception. Or make traps roll their DCs. Static vs static = design fail. Also change crits to max dmg dice + roll once more, but no doubling of anything else (like SA or smite etc).

A big paragraph in DMG about changing rules to suit your table. It isnt overt enough for me, still. I want it in your face 13th Age style.

Otherwise I'm pretty much good.

 

[delericho]

Point taken, folks. I never personally experienced the pain that comes with buying another version of the same ruleset you already own because it's "outdated," but I can see how it'd be annoying.

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with them doing a revised edition eventually. I didn't have a problem with 3.5e, and I considered Essentials to be "4.5e done right" (the backwards compatibility was a good thing).

So in a bunch of years I'll welcome 5.5e, or 5e Essentials, or 5e Revised, or whatever.

But it's way too soon to be talking about it. Somewhere in there, 5e has some big, structural problems... but they won't be evident until people have had a chance to really dig into the rules, find all the break points, and drag them into the light. Six months from now, the list of 'big' concerns will be very different from what it is today; a year from now it will be very different again.

So what I want is for us to take some time, give the new edition some time to sink in, give ourselves time to see what it can really do... and then we can talk sensibly about a revision.

 

[Umbran]

The DMG isn't required for rules. They're all in the PHB (and monsters manual).

Irrelevant to the point. The game has only just been published in what amounts to a complete form. If you really want to count back to the MM, that only adds a couple of months. Still not enough time for people with jobs and families and obligations to have played the game in fullness.

Based on a teaser trailer, people are already critiquing the new star wars films that are not starting to come out till next year! Fans will be fans.

"X will be X" does not actually excuse undesirable behavior. All it tells you is that the state of being X ought to be examined, which I had effectively pointed out anyway.

This is not to say the books are above critique, or that one can't note stuff they'd like. But there's a lot (a whole lot) to be said for also playing the game as it is, and exploring what it can do *without* changes. The neverending, "I want it to have this exact feature I have in my head," gets in the way of exploring the features it does have. All too often we do not take the time to really fully experience understand what we have, before we decide it has to be changed.

 

[Raith5]

Irrelevant to the point. The game has only just been published in what amounts to a complete form. If you really want to count back to the MM, that only adds a couple of months. Still not enough time for people with jobs and families and obligations to have played the game in fullness.



"X will be X" does not actually excuse undesirable behavior. All it tells you is that the state of being X ought to be examined, which I had effectively pointed out anyway.

This is not to say the books are above critique, or that one can't note stuff they'd like. But there's a lot (a whole lot) to be said for also playing the game as it is, and exploring what it can do *without* changes. The neverending, "I want it to have this exact feature I have in my head," gets in the way of exploring the features it does have. All too often we do not take the time to really fully experience understand what we have, before we decide it has to be changed.

Sorry I did not mean to sound flippant. I just mean that fans are passionate by definition. I dont agree with or fully understand this desire to deconstruct things from the outset but it comes with territory of knowledgeable fans on the internet. But I think it is fair to say that this activity is "still a thing" (to quote John Oliver) and saying it is undesirable behavior goes too far.

 

[DaveDash]

Irrelevant to the point. The game has only just been published in what amounts to a complete form. If you really want to count back to the MM, that only adds a couple of months. Still not enough time for people with jobs and families and obligations to have played the game in fullness.
.

Actually the original point WAS that the DMG was only released, thus we were not in a position to judge the ruleset in terms of revisions. That point is false, since the bulk of the rules have been out for some time now.

And just because "people with jobs and families" haven't played the game in fullness yet, doesn't mean other people have not. It also took about 2 hours of trying using the monster creation rules and comparing those results with monsters already published to see that there are flaws in the CR system in general. When the lead designer in a podcast said a lot of the CR system in the Monsters Manual was done by "Feel" and not maths, this is not surprising.
Furthermore, we already have access to official published modules which many people have completed now, that don't seem to follow the encounter building guidelines at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually the original point WAS that the DMG was only released, thus we were not in a position to judge the ruleset in terms of revisions. That point is false, since the bulk of the rules have been out for some time now.

And just because "people with jobs and families" haven't played the game in fullness yet, doesn't mean other people have not. It also took about 2 hours of trying using the monster creation rules and comparing those results with monsters already published to see that there are flaws in the CR system in general. When the lead designer in a podcast said a lot of the CR system in the Monsters Manual was done by "Feel" and not maths, this is not surprising.
Furthermore, we already have access to official published modules which many people have completed now, that don't seem to follow the encounter building guidelines at all.

The CR ratings are a joke and the encounter guidelines are even worse. We are level 12 now and I swear it is worse than 3.0 let alone 3.5. THe monsters lack the hit points of 4E and the defences of AD&D and 3.x. BA doesn't work so well either.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

When you say it seriously unbalances the game, do you say that from experience playing with the feat and finding the game went all off balance, or are you saying that because you suspect that is the case but have not played with it a lot to verify it?