Cr sucks but so do HD.

Let's see...
On the monster side of things
I would make monsters terrifying and lethal. I.E. No more 24 hour petrification and other inconveniences.
Darkvision is for monsters and has corresponding light sensitivity.
De-classify monsters no more aberrations, undead, elementals, fiends and so on with a homogenized suite of abilities that all to often make little sense.
Reduce monster hit points.
Monster stat blocks get streamlined because they don't need to look like character sheets
I'd eliminate CR

On the player side of things
Reduce player character hit points
De-nerf/gamify spells let them get wierd.
Organize spells so they are easier to reference.
Two spell lists. Cleric and wizard and they would be separated
Lower ability bonuses
New saving throw categories
Multi-classing revamped
Racial bonuses and abilities toned down or narrowed
Classes rebuilt from the ground up with an eye toward cutting the fat
Initiative changed to use the same dice as used to roll for class hit points (warriors have greater initiative than wizards)
Or
Side initiative
Or
Proficiency dice
Weapon damage changed to static number plus proficiency dice
Have armor pad hit points (and thusly a non-magical restoration of hp) still keeping it low
Make physical defense proficiency based
Make spell casting checks a thing
That's about all I have for now

Quote from: Blankman on December 29, 2021, 04:59:27 PM
Oh right, skills. Yeah, I'd probably remove skills from the core, and say instead that any action that connects to your background you get a proficiency bonus for, or advantage. So if you want to convince the grizzled sergeant to let you into the camp, you're better off sending in the Fighter with the Soldier background than the charismatic Bard who was previously an Entertainer. Some classes would have to be reworked for this, but that's fine.

I have to agree with this.  Even though I love a skill system in my games, too many times players will just make stupid skill choices.  So I would want to eliminate those stupid choices. 

Also I would want to ensure that a character class is good at a particular thing: i.e. fighters: Athletics, Thieves: Everything thiefly, Clerics: Religion, Wizards: Arcana, etc...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 29, 2021, 09:07:36 PM
Cr sucks but so do HD.

HD at least was a 1:1 comparison. 1 Level = 1 HD. From there, there might be some quirks (monster special abilites) and action economy, but CR lost this 1:1 track, and didn't even compensate for SA and action economy.

I would say HD suck less than CR.

If tweaking 5e, I'd probably replace skills with a broad proficiency based off background & class, and I would make the Ranger and Paladin classes non-spellcasting, at least until Tier 3. I'd buff the Champion Fighter a bit so it's a more solidly good choice for the player who just wants to kick butt. I'd not give Bards the bonus to Init they accidentally ended up with. I'd probably go back to 4e-style dying rules but without 'start from zero', though TBH I've got used to the 5e approach.

Overall though I am very happy with 5e as presented in PHB-MM-DMG.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 09:27:44 AMHD at least was a 1:1 comparison.

And was worse as that. People so much give flak for past systems for just not bothering with stuff future editions had but didn't do perfectly.

I had no idea retroplayers where so attached to random insta-death effects. I find it utterly bizarre.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 10:06:58 AM


I had no idea retroplayers where so attached to random insta-death effects. I find it utterly bizarre.

At most a small minority if your lucky a handful. Most who play and are still interested in playing older editions don't both with that kind of stuff. I played older editions for almost 20+ years and absolutely no one liked playing D&D for the random insta-death effects.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 10:06:58 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 09:27:44 AMHD at least was a 1:1 comparison.

And was worse as that. People so much give flak for past systems for just not bothering with stuff future editions had but didn't do perfectly.

I had no idea retroplayers where so attached to random insta-death effects. I find it utterly bizarre.

I only ever hear DM's complain about save or die stuff.  Likewise level drain, stats that don't suck, and dying rules.  Players seem to be okay with having durable characters for some reason.  As a guy who mostly DM's I am okay with a compromise.  Any torturer worth his salt will tell you that you can't hurt 'em if you kill 'em.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on December 30, 2021, 10:16:09 AM
I only ever hear DM's complain about save or die stuff.  Likewise level drain, stats that don't suck, and dying rules.  Players seem to be okay with having durable characters for some reason.  As a guy who mostly DM's I am okay with a compromise.  Any torturer worth his salt will tell you that you can't hurt 'em if you kill 'em.

Erm, do you mean GMs like or dislike instadeath effects?

I'd remove Archetypes (allow 2e-style optional kits with both abilities AND hindrances, but in a follow-up PHB 2)
Remove Warlocks, Dragonborn and Tieflings as playable by PCs.
Make it clear that Cleric and Paladin abilities come from deities.
Make Alignment Great Again. "No Evil Characters" was a better safety tool for eliminating shenanigans than a 30-question Consent Form pdf.

But I'd keep a lot of the core mechanics. Most of the issues of 5e are cultural,  not mechanical.

While I have my foibles with 5e, so much of the criticism I hear here is more "I wish 1e was more popular" then any design discussion of 5e as what it tries to be.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 10:06:58 AM

I had no idea retroplayers where so attached to random insta-death effects. I find it utterly bizarre.

It's not really a matter of 'love' or 'attachment' to those effects, it's just that they make certain monsters very dangerous, as they are presented in literature / mythology, and not opponents to be engaged with impunity or trifled with.

The two examples that always jump to my mind are the old school vampire and the medusa.

One can drain 2 levels per hit on a PC. That is something that will quickly kill a character or render them too weak to survive the rest of the adventure. If you've ever read Dracula, you'll remember that he and his spawn almost did in all the protagonists.

A medusa can turn you to stone with one failed save. A single monster that can TPK a party, much like what happened to Perseus's companions in the original version of Clash of the Titans. In fact, he was lucky to survive it himself, and he was the son of Zeus.

In our current 2E campaign, we've deliberately avoided encounters with suspected wights / wraiths, because we were only 3-4th level and the level drain ability of those creatures was enough to deter us from 'risking it,' even with some substantial treasure in the form of desperately needed magical weapons in the offing. Deadly monsters do add a whole new dynamic to the game...

In my games, you will never find something like a vampire or medusa as a random dungeon monster or a 'wandering monster' encounter. They'll be a planned boss-fight, if not the center of the entire adventure, like Strahd in Ravenloft.

One thing I do like from 5E is the 'lair effects' and 'legendary actions' given to certain monsters.  But I find the idea that Strahd's best 'vampire attack' (the bite) is something the PC can recover from after a long rest to be ridiculous and tension-killing.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 10:35:25 AM
While I have my foibles with 5e, so much of the criticism I hear here is more "I wish 1e was more popular" then any design discussion of 5e as what it tries to be.

It's the Law of Primacy for us old Grogs, to a certain extent. When we see something new, there's always that tendency to want to 'run home to mama' on what we cut our teeth on. 

Quote from: jmarso on December 30, 2021, 10:36:13 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 10:06:58 AM

I had no idea retroplayers where so attached to random insta-death effects. I find it utterly bizarre.

It's not really a matter of 'love' or 'attachment' to those effects, it's just that they make certain monsters very dangerous, as they are presented in literature / mythology, and not opponents to be engaged with impunity or trifled with.

The two examples that always jump to my mind are the old school vampire and the medusa.

One can drain 2 levels per hit on a PC. That is something that will quickly kill a character or render them too weak to survive the rest of the adventure. If you've ever read Dracula, you'll remember that he and his spawn almost did in all the protagonists.

A medusa can turn you to stone with one failed save. A single monster that can TPK a party, much like what happened to Perseus's companions in the original version of Clash of the Titans. In fact, he was lucky to survive it himself, and he was the son of Zeus.

In our current 2E campaign, we've deliberately avoided encounters with suspected wights / wraiths, because we were only 3-4th level and the level drain ability of those creatures was enough to deter us from 'risking it,' even with some substantial treasure in the form of desperately needed magical weapons in the offing. Deadly monsters do add a whole new dynamic to the game...

In my games, you will never find something like a vampire or medusa as a random dungeon monster or a 'wandering monster' encounter. They'll be a planned boss-fight, if not the center of the entire adventure, like Strahd in Ravenloft.

To expand on that, an analogy that might help is exercising, or studying hard for a test. It's quite possible to dislike an activity while greatly desiring the results.

Players often hate level drains and save or dies, but the experience creates a real sense of danger that raises the stakes in the game. The visceral understanding that the game comes with real consequences for your character, and that the decisions you make matter, is an important part of the old school experience, and what many players ultimately want in the game.

The concept of enduring or even seeking out short term sacrifices or unpleasantness in exchange for long term gains is fundamental to things like getting in shape, education, investment, or even love. I find it utterly bizarre that so many people can't extrapolate that to RPGs.

While I am for certain a GM that prefers players to see combat as a thing you want to avoid, and there always be a chance for danger, as opposed to pure numbers management.
I think save or dies just suck. It does the opposite. Its just an arbitrary punishment and a gleeful use of arbitray mechanics.

Some combat allows you to arbitrarily to take 5 axes swung by a giant to the chest. But other combat with a poison centipede will 100% poison you to death even when few poisons in the real world even work like that.
Its not visceral. Its just arbitrary. And when things are mechanically arbitrary to such a wide degree I just loose interest as a GM or as a player

Edit: Death is at least merciful. It means rolling up a new character unless your a total asshole who punishes players for not playing Minions & Management.
Punishing with 'You loose metanarrative progression because fuck you' is so much worse. And I actually use penalties for being downed in my games. But the idea isn't to punish players forever for just engaging with the world based on difficult to establish meta-rules.

Edit Edit: And I find it rich that groups that decry storygames, use narrativism of mythology into mechanical points.