The OSR is arguably founded in its love for the "old school" that D&D once was. Dungeons and Dragons itself has been overhauled and reformed more than once and bears little resemblance to what it once was. The system has grown more complex, many rather questionable improvements have been made, and certain tropes that probably should have been excised (looking at you, Vancian magic system!) have been codified instead. Many would argue that D&D doesn't any longer embody the spirit that made the hobby great. There's little chance of that changing unless we see a whole series of unlikely events, but what if that weren't the case?

QuoteThe clouds part and a disembodied hand floats down from the celestial plane to bequeath upon you a holy embossed pen. It's got one of those novelty tips - you know, the type that can switch colors - except that this one does red, gold, and black, and doesn't suck. The official master of D&D 5th Edition hovers nearby at a comfortable height for easy writing and opens itself to you.

You are granted the ability to make any alterations, additions, corrections, or retractions in the effort to return D&D to glory - or perhaps make it even better than before.

What changes do you make, and why?

When 5E first came out a few years ago, I was convinced that it was a pretty good system.

Less so now, not because of the latest nonsense going on, but because I've had more experience with the system and its mechanics with a few groups of players.

Last year I joined a 2E AD&D game, the first of its kind I'd played since the 80's when I played 1E. What struck me right away was going back to how simple chargen was, and how fights seemed to go faster due to less HP bloat, and the old school monsters definitely still have their teeth compared with the new. A 2E game really moves along when it counts, and combats are fast and brutal.

I guess the main thing I don't like about 5E is the nerfing of the overall threat. Charm spells that can be newly saved against every 6 sec round, Petrification effects where you get two saves on successive rounds instead of one and done (or dead!), and the biggest threat posed by things like vampires/wraiths/wights resolves after a long rest. Long rests! I have issues with the whole concept, and it was one of the first things I house ruled back towards older editions in games I ran. Level drain in 2E was a genuinely scary threat for most players- something to be avoided at all costs! I get that the 5E designers wanted to keep players standing and in the game, but what I've found is that in a lot of 5E games there is little sense of threat or danger, and therefore not much fun, either. Especially when you get a 'soft' DM who plays the monsters and NPC's 'stupid' and doesn't use their full potential. I guess DM's can be guilty of that in all versions, though.

I am firmly convinced that the 'perfect' system is hiding somewhere in between 2E and 5E.  I've been thinking about trying to hybridize it (I'm sure other people have already done it) taking some of the best practices and mechanics from both and combining them. 2E needs to lose the 'roll high sometimes, roll low sometimes' mechanics, which are hugely confusing even to experienced players at times, and ascending AC is the way to go, I think. Also, XP based largely on treasure haul is one of the biggest faults of the old school, lending itself to the worst kind of Monty Haul campaigns. I like the backgrounds and skills of 5E, but not the ASI's and ability for mere mortals to obtain stats above 18. I also think the bonuses in 5E for stats are too large, but those are baked into the game mechanics so changing them willy nilly would cause issues.

Anyway. This post kind of rambles around, I know, but there it is. I may come back and try to re-organize my jumbled thoughts into more coherent lists.

The biggest thing would be to play up the modularity of 5e which they seem to have completely abandoned. Like if you use their slow natural healing you break two classes. I'd also do away with long and short rests entirely, and that stupid death save system.

A lot of spells need reworking to be less gamey like was mentioned above like charm person. And for ffs get rid of all those spellcasting variants, and munchkin races.

Worst of all I'd get rid of any ability that allows players to entirely circumvent portions of the game like auto forage for food for the whole party/create food and water, never get lost, etc. they completely gutted the overland and wilderness portion of the game.

Well, in reality I'd toss it and start over.  In the spirit of the question, however, there are basically two potential paths:

1. Cater to tradition.
2. Rebuild the game from the ground up.

They are mutually exclusive.  If you cater to tradition, for example, need to all but eliminate skills.  Skills are the wrong level of granularity for a game that has fighters, rangers, barbarians, rogues, etc. all in the same game.  A similar dynamic occurs with magic.

On the flip side, if those things are going to stay to make it sort of like other WotC D&D games, then tradition has got to go to make it a good game. 

Everything and its uncle has Darkvision. Fire elementals have Darkvision, and they are constantly lighting up their surroundings. Seeing in pitch black tunnels should be rare, not something every monster, humanoid and animal except humans can easily do. So most creatures and races would lose Darkvision. Also, more creatures should have vulnerabilities to various damage types, especially those that can't otherwise be harmed by normal weapons or ones that are very tough.

The rest system doesn't bother me, because it is easy enough to change how long a rest is (and two variants are suggested in the DMG). Saves on the other hand could work differently, I think in general all your saves should increase as you level up.

Most of my issues with the rules are as you can see fairly minor.

Stop releasing rules expansions after Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and the 3 Monster books.  Focus on releasing better adventure content, without woke garbage.

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.

The woke is like the cherry on top of this shit sunday. It by and large is the SMALLEST problem.

Its a edition that has taken no good from its previous editions, has fixed none of the bad from previous editions, and has plenty of bad on its own with very few of its own good ideas.

What would I change about 5e?

Everyone I know complains about the Long Rest mechanic where you are fully healed after 8 hours of rest.  Thereis a variant in the DMG that makes a long rest take a week, but that screws over spellcasters.  I would allow an 8 hour rest to heal 1hit die plus con bonus (minimum 1) hit points, and restore all spell slots. 

A "Short Rest" (between 1 hour and 7 hours 59 minutes, gets you one hit point and whatever benefits your class gets from a short rest.

I would also implement the Lingering Injuries rule in the DMG ch. 9, or something like it.  Where a critical hit, or a reduction to 0 HP resulted in an injury that was debilitating. 

I would use the "unconscious between 0hp-10 hp" rule from previous editions in lieu of death saves.  Any healing an unconsious creature recieves would automatically stabilize them and heal as many hit points as the spell allows, if it is still lower than 0, the injured creature is still unconscious.

I would have players gain average hit points per level instead of rolling.  This would keep everyone's hit points manageable.

I would slow the rate of level progression on levels 4 through 10.

I would get rid of Darkvision and use something like low-light vision from 3e, where you cannot see in total darkness. Only rare creatures would have true darkvision including Drow and Tieflings.

I would require a Constitution saving throw (DC10) from anyone who uses the same cantrip more than once within one minute's time.  If you fail, you can't use that cantrip again until you rest for 8 hours.

For certain skills that require intense study to learn, I would not allow an untrained (i.e. non-proficient) person to succeed on a skill check.  These skills/proficiencies include: Arcana, Religion, Alchemist Tools, Navigation Tools, and any other skill or tool set based on the circumstances of the event.  In order to grant advantage by helping someone perform those skills/toolset, the character must also be proficient in that skill/toolset.

I would exclude everything from Tasha's.

My problem with 5e previously was it was a compromise edition. I'm vehemently against such milquetoast approaches in game design. I far rather 4e's mixed-success with creating something brand new than a "safe" and pandering mish-mosh.

It's why I prefer imperfect first edition of RPGs where the energy and enthusiasm jumps off the page vs. the later "fixed" versions which MAY be "better" mechanically on paper, but are sapped of life force.

It's why Palladium Fantasy 1e and Rifts 1e are totally amazeballs. Wonky as fuck but Kevin's hot blooded love for his creation leaps off every page and THAT bizarrely translates into actual play.

My problem currently with 5e is WotC is asshoe. Though I'm open to seeing what others might do with the various mechanical concepts.

But "big budget" RPGs are just like Hollyweird - always playing it safe and counting on flashy images to hide the lack of substance and heart.

Quote from: Spinachcat on December 29, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
My problem with 5e previously was it was a compromise edition. I'm vehemently against such milquetoast approaches in game design. I far rather 4e's mixed-success with creating something brand new than a "safe" and pandering mish-mosh.

Quote from: Spinachcat on December 29, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
But "big budget" RPGs are just like Hollyweird - always playing it safe and counting on flashy images to hide the lack of substance and heart.

I agree that it's a compromise edition which is milquetoast in approach - but broadly, I don't think that's terrible for RPG core rules. It means that what's fresh and exciting about an individual game isn't the core rules, but rather the campaign content. I felt similarly about Hero System 4th edition, that I thought did a great job of being a streamlined compromise between the many different 3rd edition Hero System games. The value of the compromise system is in getting out of the way - so rules run smoothly, and are well-indexed and organized, and solidly playtested.

In an RPG, I can have a milquetoast core rules - but interesting and engaging setting, characters, and adventures.

I tried to have strong, different concepts for my 5E games. My first campaign was a dragon apocalypse where the surface world was devastated by a plague of dragons, and the population had to flee underground into dungeons.

I've struggled a bit with how to keep combats quick and punchy in 5E. My current thinking is favoring high-damage, low-hit-point opponents who aren't tactically apt - compared to what I think is the default. When I play weak opponents optimally, it increases the likelihood of single PC death - but action is less dramatic. It's more fun to me to have scary, powerful, but not tactically smart opponents.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 29, 2021, 05:07:24 PM
The woke is like the cherry on top of this shit sunday. It by and large is the SMALLEST problem.

Its a edition that has taken no good from its previous editions, has fixed none of the bad from previous editions, and has plenty of bad on its own with very few of its own good ideas.

Yep; that sums it up.  5e is D&D's "Rise of Skywalker."  There are no redeeming features.  Its very existence is a blight on the hobby.  So the only real solution is to send everyone who worked for WoTC to a labor camp in Russia or China where they can enjoy their paradise. 

Then, go back to 1985; change the results of a certain board meeting.  Then see what happens after that.

Sorry folks, but if I ever stumble across a time machine, I'm gonna go visit a HoJo's and stock up on Zima. Maybe hit Burger Chef and Fajita Flats along the way.

Basic changes I'd make:

- Classes and races from the PHB remain standard. Variant Human becomes the standard version.

- Eliminate multi-classes. (Seriously, having to hear about "builds" and "dips" is like nails on a chalkboard for me)

- Replace the Ranger with the UA version.

- Add class/race options, backgrounds and spells from Elemental Evil, Strahd, SCAG and XGE as standard options.

- Jettison everything else after XGE and also player options from VGM.

- I also like Svenhelgrim's adaptation of the short/long rest options from the DMG.

Some other things I'd add:

- DM rolls all skill checks when appropriate; players describe their actions. I kinda got tired of scenarios like a party walking into a room and players just rolling for perception or investigation rather than asking questions or actually role-playing.

- Optional rules for online play and PbP (side-based initiative) to speed things along.

---

All the above would be if keeping some semblance of 5e.

The truly optimal thing to do would be to clean up 1e into a new 2e with all the lurid shit that Lorraine Williams hated added back in (Half-Orcs, Assassins, Demons, Devils, etc.).

Quote from: FF_Ninja on December 29, 2021, 02:49:05 PM
You are granted the ability to make any alterations, additions, corrections, or retractions in the effort to return D&D to glory - or perhaps make it even better than before.

What changes do you make, and why?

Rip out CR. Go back to using Hit Dice as the benchmark for how tough an encounter is.

Because CR is terrible, doesn't accomplish it's intended use, is fiddly and hard to understand.