D&D (2024) YOU are in charge of the next PHB! What do you change?

[Malmuria]

The thing I like about race-as-class is mechanical simplicity, especially when doing character creation with new players. I don't like how in 5e you get skill proficiencies from possibly three sources (race, class, background), and some might overlap. I find that ribbon abilities (gnome tinker, stonecunning) are to niche to be useful, and saving throw bonuses to specific kinds of spells or damage easy to forget. A lot of what's in the races is there just because it was there in 1e and is part of the heritage, except most races get darkvision because you're really playing a 1e style game where vision/light matters. This is before we get to the incoherent worldbuilding, the rapid expansion of races, the fact that neither the implied or default setting (FR) tell DMs how all these humanoids fit together in a cohesive way, and of course the issues of essentialism. I'd rather races/ancestries and cultures be tied to particular settings than part of the kitchen sink.

 

[Malmuria]

Well, except it really isn't...

They key factor here is "compatible with other non-PHB 5e books", not "you're free to go nuts". So, this really isn't the thread for people to decide druid isn't a class, it's the thread on how to fix the 5e druid. So, all these hot takes of getting rid of spell slots, turning everything that isn't the fighter and/or the wizard into a subclass, or buy Paizo and making Golarion the default D&D world is a little beyond the scope of this discussion.

You can do all of those things, except maybe the fighter/wizard thing, and they would still be compatible with 5e mechanically. You could run a 5e game that doesn't have any druids. There are rules for spell points in the dmg. Golarion would be as good as FR as the default setting. They probably won't do those things because it wouldn't "feel" like dnd, but it would all be compatible.

Not that anyone really paid attention to that, btw. So If your secret plan is have all 5e PHBs spontaneously combust and be replaced with the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia, that's no more off topic than if you want to argue that you would eliminate subraces and make racial features more modular.

Anyone who is coming up with a revised or new edition of the game (and not just another "of everything" book) would engage in the creative exercise of taking it apart and putting it back together again. By which I mean, seeing what parts could be taken out or added before it was truly not compatible with the current edition.

 

[Faolyn]

Ugh, I hate, hate, hate race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter maybe and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.

Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.

 

[Malmuria]

Ugh, I hate, hate, hate race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter maybe and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.

Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.

I agree, but the way I look at it is not that the whole race is the same, but the kind of elf or dwarf that is available for play is limited to a single class. That being said, the version that I'd like to see would let you play any race you can imagine, but with no or limited mechanical effect

 

[Faolyn]

I agree, but the way I look at it is not that the whole race is the same, but the kind of elf or dwarf that is available for play is limited to a single class. That being said, the version that I'd like to see would let you play any race you can imagine, but with no or limited mechanical effect

Still, it makes all PC whatevers the same, with little opportunity for customization.

Maybe it's just because I nearly always play something new when I make a character.

 

[Minigiant]

I would remove all ASIs from race. Only leaving adjustments to be used exclusively when rolling. And these adjustments are only raise one physical stat, lower another physical stat. But if it is pointbuy/array, we don't need no ASIs.

That's close to how D&D is going. Players get to put a +2 and +1 wherever they want.

I'd just have a special rule for fantastic races where you get double the bonuses but the setting chooses where they go and you get extra pros and cons.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing I like about race-as-class is mechanical simplicity, especially when doing character creation with new players. I don't like how in 5e you get skill proficiencies from possibly three sources (race, class, background), and some might overlap. I find that ribbon abilities (gnome tinker, stonecunning) are to niche to be useful, and saving throw bonuses to specific kinds of spells or damage easy to forget. A lot of what's in the races is there just because it was there in 1e and is part of the heritage, except most races get darkvision because you're really playing a 1e style game where vision/light matters. This is before we get to the incoherent worldbuilding, the rapid expansion of races, the fact that neither the implied or default setting (FR) tell DMs how all these humanoids fit together in a cohesive way, and of course the issues of essentialism. I'd rather races/ancestries and cultures be tied to particular settings than part of the kitchen sink.

Race as class died because of extra settings, subraces, DM world-building and player stories.
That simplicity in PC also made the stories and worlds simple as well.

5e went far in the other direction but didn't ponder the idea heavily. Skill should come from background. Only long lived races (and humans) and skill monkey classes should get any bonus skills. Every noble should have access to the face and academic skills. Criminals would have all the underhanded skills. And soldiers would have all the physical and military skills. So if you wanted all your elves to be snooty high elves, you just make all elves nobles. Then penalize their diplomacy because they are snooty.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Ugh, I hate, hate, hate race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter maybe and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.

Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.

I never got the appeal of raceclass, I could consider subclasses made by a subrace that spread to others over time like that elf wizard who has a sword but homogenizing a race is bad plus if the mechanics are cool you want to be able to play it with any races.

 

[mrswing]

I would make it much shorter and easier to read. Get away from the textbook feel, reduce some aspects (only the Tolkien fantasy races in the basic PHB) and really watch over clarity in the rule explanations. 128 pages would be the goal. If it’s more than that the extra pages should all be art. Try to méke this as appealing and accessible as possible to get as many new players in as possible.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I would make it much shorter and easier to read. Get away from the textbook feel, reduce some aspects (only the Tolkien fantasy races in the basic PHB) and really watch over clarity in the rule explanations. 128 pages would be the goal. If it’s more than that the extra pages should all be art. Try to méke this as appealing and accessible as possible to get as many new players in as possible.

I disagree with you on the races but easier to read would be a godsend as I had to give someone a video tutorial to explain how to set up the sheet.