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

[Umbran]

If you're like Mistywell and want to bury your head in the sand ....

Rule #1 of EN World is, "Keep it civil." Insulting people is not civil.

To avoid the temptation to take such potshots, we advise folks to not make it personal - address the content of the post, not the person of the poster, please and thank you.

 

[Zardnaar]

My players have been using the -5/+10 feats in a real game. They are OP at the very least, I would go as far as saying they are broken. When you look at things like the extra attack for valor bards or the bonus dice of damage for clerics, the +2 to a stat bump for the price of a feat and the fighting styles having feats that grant +10 damage on all attacks are OP assuming the PCs can negate that -5 penalty to hit which is what bless does. They can also gain advantage and there are a lot of abilities/spells that do that.

The grapple feat is not very clear probably needs a rewrite, Warcaster, Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master are either feat taxes, overpowered or idiot taxes much like natural spell, power attack/cleave and point blank shot/rapid shot were in 3.5.

Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert and maybe sentinel are not to far behind either.

 

[Pickles JG]

I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) claim 5e is perfect, but the issues you mention do not call for anything like an entire revision of the rulebooks. A simple errata/clarifications page would work just fine for these and most other issues.

While they may not need it thewe are things people would like to see in a revised edition thus staying on topic.

Your other point about people being impossible to please is of course the converse point to it being too early to demand revision. It is equally too early to declare all is fine and dandy.

It seems a very good game in play to date though.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the comments about "this thread is too soon" is off topic discussion. The thread is here to discuss what people would change....so that's what should be discussed. If you think the answer is "nothing", that's fine.

But saying "you are wrong to even have this thread" is not constructive.


For me, there are definitely some spells that need tweaking (there was a great low level wizard spell thread a while ago that highlighted some deficiencies in certain spells).

I'm also not a fan of the new concentration rule. I think:

1) There are spells that need to have a disruption mechanic.
2) There are spells that should not stack with many other spells.

But often not both, which to me is the problem. Concentration would have been better served imo as two seperate mechanics that can handle each of those points individually. But as now, its more of a club than it needs to be.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Personally I'd rather see AoO options expanded a little bit to make combat a tad more tactical if you are using minis. Nowhere near 3e but more than just this. But that is easily added back in by me so no worries.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I agree with [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] on concentration. When I first saw it I thought it was a great mechanic, but the more I play the more I start to think that it isn't the best solution. It also does not scale very well as mentioned by [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]. At low levels breaking concentration with damage is very hard, but at high levels if you hit someone concentrating it's virtually guaranteed to be broken (I've seen the DC get set at 35). I'm not going to house rule it any time soon though. I'll need more time with it to judge it properly.

Everything else I'd want to see could just be in future unearthed arcana articles. More archetypes for the classes that only currently have 2, like the barbarian and the sorcerer. More feats that could be useful for spellcasters once they max out their spell casting stat.

 

[Jester David]

I agree with [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] on concentration. When I first saw it I thought it was a great mechanic, but the more I play the more I start to think that it isn't the best solution. It also does not scale very well as mentioned by [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]. At low levels breaking concentration with damage is very hard, but at high levels if you hit someone concentrating it's virtually guaranteed to be broken (I've seen the DC get set at 35). I'm not going to house rule it any time soon though. I'll need more time with it to judge it properly.

I'm leaning to a Constitution check of 10+ the level of spell slot used. So DC 11-19.
As it's not a skill/save proficiency doesn't apply so that should scale well.

 

[jodyjohnson]

"I'd like to see what I like left alone and what I'm house ruling become the RAW in the next revision."

-- Everyone

Alternately, I'll just keep doing what we're already doing which is the above minus the printed RAW stipulation.

 

[DaveDash]

All my casters take Resilience (con) from level 8 or 12 onwards. I've never seen anything remotely like DC35 as a regular occurrence. Most checks at level 17+ have been 10-20, which is fairly balanced imo with a +8 or +9 check.
If you want to be good at concentration checks you need to build a character that is good at it, and the game allows an avenue for you to do that.

I definitely do not like the idea of DC10 + spell level. You only get a limited number of high level slots, and it would be not that fun to have them break due to concentration when you get tickled by an arrow.

 

[SavageCole]

Armor Soak