Some stuff I would do to fix 5e

[TheHalfAasimar]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.


So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

[Joshthemanwich]

I would add a more in depth section explaining how 5e expects a dungeon to be designed and ran at the table, How long does it take to search a room? How long does it take to check for traps and disarm them? How long does it take to check for secret doors? How loud is your average character?
Things along those lines.
I don't think you can fix much that isn't broken. But 5e's Dungeon focus lacks what I see as a basic foundation

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.

No. They have meta magic. Give them one more at level 7.

2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!

Yes. 10 year old idea.

3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.

Just get rid of charisma casters completely.

4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.

In 5e, it's called an opportunity attack. And Prof mod, not dex mod. Dex is already the super stat.

5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.

No, rage needs to recharge on a short rest.

6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.

Too many details to discuss, and no, PF2e is not a good cross patch.

7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.

Power creep is already a problem. No.

8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!

For certain definitions of fun, maybe.

9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.

Warlock invocations for the win.

10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

Are you aware of what a sub class is?

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

Great idea.

[Skrum]

I like most of these, at least the intent that seems to be behind them.

1) Sure, why not!
2) Sure, why not!
3) Hmmmm. I don't love this. For one, I don't really see the Str connection. Sorcerers, in my estimation, are instinctual; shaping magic with raw force of will. Not saying they should be Wisdom casters (enough of those!), but that makes more sense to me than Str. If this change was made, I'd want to see sorcerers move more in a gish direction, let them get some actual mileage out of Str (instead of just being a totally yoked guy wearing robes and avoiding melee combat)
4) Meh. Players already have so much control over what happens when it's not their turn via shield, silvery barbs, cloud rune, etc., that I would be really hesitant to do this. Even with only one reaction it's often only after that reaction is spent can monsters actually get a window of opportunity. I would be extremely hesitant to do this
5) Sure, why not!
6) 1000%
7) 1000%
8) No strong feelings
9) My thought here is the casting classes should have more tailored spell lists - make more class-only spells. Stop making levels in full casting classes the doorway to infinite adaptability in the form of access to EVERYTHING
10) This is a huge topic. I don't disagree per se, but I think the far more pertinent question is balance between classes that get spells and classes that don't. Like, what does it mean to be "mundane." Does choosing a mundane class mean having a rather narrow scope of Things To Do

[Psyren]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.


So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

I agree with #2, #9 (optional or alternative features in particular), and #10 (will likely happen after core.)

#5 and #6 are already getting improved in 5.5e. Technically so is #8, but not until a level most people won't reach. #7 works better as extra rewards, like Boons.

Disagree with the rest. 3 & 4 in particular are bad ideas.

No, rage needs to recharge on a short rest.

They added in that we can recover one use on a short rest in the most recent UA

[Mastikator]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.


So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

I think you need to go into more detail what the actual problems are that you are trying to solve. Why don't you like the limited reaction economy? Why don't you like sorcerers as charisma casters? Why is 2 intelligence casters not enough? (3 if you count eldritch knight)

Is it just that you miss 3.5?

-

1) I think this is a neat idea, but I don't know what problem this fixes?
2) Again, what problem does this fix? I did like the UA warlock where warlocks got to choose.
3) If they did this I would homebrew it back to charisma. If a DM used sorcerers as strength casters I would not play at their table. Just no. This creates problems rather than solve them.
4) Dex does not need a boost, and creatures/PCs do not need more reactions. Again I don't know what problem this is supposed to fix, but it creates problems rather than fix them.
5) Pretty much agreed. I like the UA where barbarians can keep it going with a bonus action, I like that it lasts 10 minutes by default
6) Haven't played PF2, I do like that in the UA they are getting more stuff, weapon mastery and features that improve weapon mastery. They also get indomitable, in 5e it is basically trash, in the UA it is really good
7) disagree here, I prefer the way the UA handles it, everyone gets a level 1 feat at level 1. I like that feats and ASIs are interchangeable. I think that setting level 4 as double feat would make multiclassing too strong, however you could set character level 4 = one feat (so that barb4/fighter4 gets 3 feats, not 4)
8) only for level 20 characters. All classes should have a capstone that increases their primary beyond 20

9/10 are too broad fr

[Kurald Galain]

Well ok, I assume you're asking for feedback on that.

1. Yes, that's a much better fit.
2. Yes, the game needs more int casters; however, warlocks (who make a pact with a powerful entity) are a poor fit for this.
3. Strength-based casting makes absolutely no sense.
4. Sounds unbalanced, and provoking AOOs is pretty rare anyway.
5. Fine.
6. PF2e fighters are much less customizable than the (quite a lot) of subclasses and feats that 5E fighters get, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to solve here.
7. I love getting more feats.
8. Sure, getting a 22 isn't going to break anything.
9. Fine.
10. I'm fine with that, but what new (or old) class in particular do you have in mind?

[Arkhios]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.

You're not wrong on that. Sorcerers should get a signature spell ability, the ability to cast a chosen spell or two at-will, within reasonable limits.

2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come on, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!

Agreed. And it's something the devs did prefer themselves until they caved in under feedback demanding Charisma over Intelligence.

3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.

Strength? Why the hell? Constitution I could stand behind of, but Strength? No way. There's absolutely no logic behind this, other than some ulterior motive to multiclass with warrior classes and make yet another gish, which seems to be on everyone's lips recently.

4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.

Half-agree. Opportunity Attacks based on your DEX modifier (minimum 1) would be reasonable. But there are so many other things, more powerful things, to do with Reactions so I wouldn't recommend changing it for all Reactions.

5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.

Can't say I disagree on this. But I'm a bit indifferent in this regard.

6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.

I think you might want to ask yourself if it's really D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e you want to play. Pathfinder 2e has nothing good to offer for 5e. Period.

7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.

Agreed. Though half-feats would have to go, or at least be changed so that they no longer increase ability scores.

8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!

I strongly disagree. Bounded accuracy would lose its whole purpose if went down this rabbit hole.

9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.

Agreed.

10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

Agreed. Druids, for one, should definitely be more focused on wild shaping, and much less on spellcasting.

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

I mean, sure. 3.5/Pathfinder might offer more tools to fiddle around with if that is what you want from a game. But you do have several good points, though not all of them.

[TheHalfAasimar]

You're not wrong on that. Sorcerers should get a signature spell ability, the ability to cast a chosen spell or two at-will, within reasonable limits.


Agreed. And it's something the devs did prefer themselves until they caved in under feedback demanding Charisma over Intelligence.


Strength? Why the hell? Constitution I could stand behind of, but Strength? No way. There's absolutely no logic behind this, other than some ulterior motive to multiclass with warrior classes and make yet another gish, which seems to be on everyone's lips recently.


Half-agree. Opportunity Attacks based on your DEX modifier (minimum 1) would be reasonable. But there are so many other things, more powerful things, to do with Reactions so I wouldn't recommend changing it for all Reactions.


Can't say I disagree on this. But I'm a bit indifferent in this regard.


I think you might want to ask yourself if it's really D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e you want to play. Pathfinder 2e has nothing good to offer for 5e. Period.


Agreed. Though half-feats would have to go, or at least be changed so that they no longer increase ability scores.


I strongly disagree. Bounded accuracy would lose its whole purpose if went down this rabbit hole.


Agreed.


Agreed. Druids, for one, should definitely be more focused on wild shaping, and much less on spellcasting.


I mean, sure. 3.5/Pathfinder might offer more tools to fiddle around with if that is what you want from a game. But you do have several good points, though not all of them.

I see your points, and you bring up some good points. I think I would enjoy 3.5e, because I like working with numbers, and it just sounds generally better.

[Skrum]

I see your points, and you bring up some good points. I think I would enjoy 3.5e, because I like working with numbers, and it just sounds generally better.

3.5's action economy is a COMPLETE MESS. Like absolutely awful, especially for martials. For that reason alone I don't want to go back to 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

3.5's action economy is a COMPLETE MESS. Like absolutely awful, especially for martials. For that reason alone I don't want to go back to 3.5.

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable

[Psyren]

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable

I think it's more the fact that moving screws up your ability to attack multiple times unless you jump through a bunch of hoops to get pounce or an equivalent, as well as that iterative penalties make those multiple attacks almost impossible to land against CR-appropriate foes past the first few. Why PF2 kept iterative penalties of all things is beyond me.

Another issue with 3.5 was the mandatory item christmas tree, which was so prevalent that WotC themselves officially acknowledged its existence.

[JackPhoenix]

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable

No, like the inability to move and still be able to take effective actions (unless you're a caster, of course) without having to jump through so many hoops. Or to move-act-move. Just that, on its own, is almost all the reason I need to not want to go back to 3.x again.

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

1: Whatever. Sure, why not? I'd rather have it expand on the cheaper sorcery point/spell slot conversion Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul have.
2: Sure, whatever. I'd rather look at spellcasting ability scores in general, though.
3: No. That doesn't make a shred of sense.
4: Yes and no. Extra reactions for everyone, based on Dex? Definitely not. More ways to use reactions, especially for martials, so combat isn't so static when it's not your turn? Definitely.
5: As long as the Rage lasts entire encounter, it's long enough. More uses of Rage? Sure.
6: More stuff? Sure. PF2? Nope.
7: Nah. That's just power creep. Extra ASI for very MAD classes like monk or barbarian? Sure. I'm not sure why it's limited to a fighter and a rogue, who are in general pretty SAD (still less so than casters, of course)
8: Sure. As long as its race-based and specific. Orcs should be able to be stronger than most other races.
9: Eh, sort of. Not necessary just more options (especially in regards to casters) but more DIVERSE options. Classic spellcasting/pact magic/spell points. More focus on abilities that aren't just "you can cast a spell" (so the opposite of what's WotC doing with D&Done).
10: More classes? Not really. More stuff for non-casters? Sure.

[Psyren]

No, like the inability to move and still be able to take effective actions (unless you're a caster, of course) without having to jump through so many hoops. Or to move-act-move. Just that, on its own, is almost all the reason I need to not want to go back to 3.x again.

Yeah, breaking up your move is another pain in the posterior in 3.5. And don't get me started on drawing or swapping weapons, which 5.5e is going to make more frictionless than any edition ever has before.

[Theodoxus]

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games? During the D&D Next play tests, we tossed out the movement restrictions from our 3.5 games, seeing the marked improvement. Took a bit longer, but we added finesse weapons keying off Dex as well.

I haven't played 3.5 in over a decade, but it wouldn't take much to keep the primary mechanics; BAB, skill points, AoOs, etc and clean them up with some 5E elbow grease and make a marked improvement over the original...

[Dr.Samurai]

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games? During the D&D Next play tests, we tossed out the movement restrictions from our 3.5 games, seeing the marked improvement. Took a bit longer, but we added finesse weapons keying off Dex as well.

I haven't played 3.5 in over a decade, but it wouldn't take much to keep the primary mechanics; BAB, skill points, AoOs, etc and clean them up with some 5E elbow grease and make a marked improvement over the original...

In total agreement with this. A fusion of some of 5E's streamlined mechanics with 3.5's content would probably make the best edition ever.

[JackPhoenix]

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games? During the D&D Next play tests, we tossed out the movement restrictions from our 3.5 games, seeing the marked improvement. Took a bit longer, but we added finesse weapons keying off Dex as well.

I haven't played 3.5 in over a decade, but it wouldn't take much to keep the primary mechanics; BAB, skill points, AoOs, etc and clean them up with some 5E elbow grease and make a marked improvement over the original...

No, because I haven't ran a PF game since we switched to 5e either.

I'm way less comfortable messing with 3.x mechanics than I'm with 5e, partially because there's a lot more moving parts and unintended consequences. I don't think improving movement (specifically) would break anything in general, but it would possibly invalidate some existing options. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if, say, a prestige class' big thing is giving Pounce, there should probably be some compensation for making it a part of basic mechanics available to everyone. It would also still be more beneficial to casters, as those are less likely to have to deal with AoOs than anyone going into melee.

[Psyren]

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games?

I'm with JackPhoenix on this one. 3.5's math isn't as tight as 4e, but giving literally every martial pounce and erasing iterative penalties sounds like a great way to turn encounters in that edition into even more rocket tag than they already are.

[Kurald Galain]

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games?

Yeah, that. This is a thread about fixing things in D&D, so obviously the same fixing mentality can be applied to 3E.

[Inquisitor]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.


So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

Some I agree with and some I don't; regardless, most of this doesn't hit the top of my list.

For me, the biggest single thing that I'd fix would be to balance short and long rest abilities for all classes. It's a pain as the DM constantly having to consider (and sometimes modify in a way that doesn't make sense in game) the number of encounters vs. rests, as failing to do this advantages some characters over others.

Getting monster stat-blocks that aren't just sacks of hp would also be on my list, though I will say some of the newer stuff has made strides in this regard.

Some spells need a complete do-over in the form of a nerf. Casters would be way more on par if the top 2-3 spells at each level were brought down to the median, and you'd see way more variation in play. Casters might even be incentivized to use spells that align with their subclass.

Without replying specifically to any of the above 10 points I'd say I'm against any power creep for any full casters and Paladins. Some of the new subclasses already do not belong at the same table with the poorer martials. Martials definitely need more tools by mid game.

The one specific fix I'll reply to is #10. I'm not sure we need more non-caster classes; we need more non-casting classes and subclasses that are good for all 4 tiers of play: see Rune Knight for an example.

[Psyren]

Yeah, that. This is a thread about fixing things in D&D, so obviously the same fixing mentality can be applied to 3E.

The point of fixing though is to start from the edition that's closest to what you want so you have minimal additional work to do.

[Amechra]

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable

While they're superficially pretty simple, the 3.X system is hilariously overcomplicated in comparison to 5e's system.

(Also, you got 3.5's collection of nonsense wrong — roughly speaking, you got a Full action (which was split into a Standard and a Move action, with Standard actions being able to be traded down for another Move action), a Swift action, a 5ft step (only if you didn't take a Move action to move!), and an Attack of Opportunity. Immediate actions consumed next turn's Swift action).

...

The one big thing I'd do, personally, is up the number of resources shared by multiple classes, rather than it effectively being spellcasting or nothing. It wouldn't actually be that difficult to merge a lot of the bespoke class resources into four-ish unified resources that you could tie feats and magic items to (roughly: Ki/Sorcery Points, Bardic Inspiration/Maneuvers, Channel Divinity/Wildshape/Pact Magic, and spell slots), and you could even reasonably add unique quirks to each one (for example, maybe the number of "Channel Divinity" uses you get varies a little by how aligned your interests are with whatever grants you power) or expand them to other classes.

No. They have meta magic. Give them one more at level 7.

What Sorcerers need to really get the right "my magic is more flexible than your magic!" vibe is spells with special interactions with specific metamagic. Like, it'd be really cool if Shadow Blade let you Twin it to dual-wield shadow swords, or if some of the weaker Concentration spells lost the Concentration requirement if you Extended them.

[Ignimortis]

Frankly, the only thing I'd do about 3.5's action economy is uncouple immediate actions from swifts. Otherwise, it's about the best it gets in any D&D-like I've seen. Making movement free makes it not mean anything unless you add in some mechanic that actively spends movement to do something better (and then it's back to full attack at some level), and making the Attack action contain all the attacks you can make in a round (other than BA attacks) by default means that as long as you have that action available, you're still doing full damage.

5e absolutely lacks any point to movement beyond "how fast can I get to melee this guy" or "can I kite this guy indefinitely then?", because charge does not exist (without the Charger feat) and AoOs are highly limited, but also going 30 feet away from a monster no longer prevents them from just walking up to you and dumping its three-attack Multiattack anyway.

So either you want to have ways to spend movement on something more than movement, or accept that it's gonna be basically meaningless outside of "how quickly can I reach my desired position?".

[Psyren]

Frankly, the only thing I'd do about 3.5's action economy is uncouple immediate actions from swifts. Otherwise, it's about the best it gets in any D&D-like I've seen. Making movement free makes it not mean anything unless you add in some mechanic that actively spends movement to do something better (and then it's back to full attack at some level), and making the Attack action contain all the attacks you can make in a round (other than BA attacks) by default means that as long as you have that action available, you're still doing full damage.

5e absolutely lacks any point to movement beyond "how fast can I get to melee this guy" or "can I kite this guy indefinitely then?", because charge does not exist (without the Charger feat) and AoOs are highly limited, but also going 30 feet away from a monster no longer prevents them from just walking up to you and dumping its three-attack Multiattack anyway.

So either you want to have ways to spend movement on something more than movement, or accept that it's gonna be basically meaningless outside of "how quickly can I reach my desired position?".

5e isn't a kitefest; most monsters are faster (and as you go up in levels, have bigger reach) than most PCs, so the party needs to use things like their frontline, battlefield control, and escape tools like bonus action teleports just to even the odds, and do so with far less ability to pile on buffs due to the concentration mechanic. Remember too that reach doesn't create weird deadzones in 5e either, a monster with 15' reach can still hit enemies next to it with any of its weapons. Moreover, everyone can grapple without eating a fat AoO for trying, and plenty of monsters still have the equivalent of 3.5's Grab.

[kingcheesepants]

Everyone is focused on quibbles like wanting more for martials to do or improving the game balance in some way or another. But really the best thing that would improve the game in my estimation is consistent language use in all published material, that's absolutely the #1 thing that would improve the game. So many problems stem from one ability or spell describing things one way and another having a similar but different way of describing things and then leaving it up to the DM to figure out what's going on. Making it so that every spell, ability, item, etc use the same terms in the same ways would fix so much ambiguity and make things better. No more nonsense of melee weapon attack vs melee attack with a weapon, or blindsight not actually helping you if you have the blinded condition, or any other such foolishness that comes from weird or inconsistent language use.

[Ignimortis]

5e isn't a kitefest; most monsters are faster (and as you go up in levels, have bigger reach) than most PCs, so the party needs to use things like their frontline, battlefield control, and escape tools like bonus action teleports just to even the odds, and do so with far less ability to pile on buffs due to the concentration mechanic. Remember too that reach doesn't create weird deadzones in 5e either, a monster with 15' reach can still hit enemies next to it with any of its weapons. Moreover, everyone can grapple without eating a fat AoO for trying, and plenty of monsters still have the equivalent of 3.5's Grab.

If you're in a dungeon or limited by a battlemap, then yes, it might not be. On a more open map? Maybe 20% of monsters are faster than 30-35 ft, and many classes have ways of increasing their movement speed to 40 or 60 feet that function for an entire combat (possibly plural). As for reach, it had basically never created deadzones for monsters in 3.5 either, that was specifically a weapon property issue (that WotC AND Paizo were both for some reason very reluctant to let players overcome normally).

However, this doesn't really change what I said. Movement in 5e is useless for anything but movement, and there is no real frontline control, because an enemy of CR3+ usually isn't afraid of eating an AoO to dash for the backline if it can. In effect, anyone can be anywhere if they so desire, and there are no considerations beyond "can I do damage and possibly avoid some damage at the same time while in this spot" for movement usage. Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.

[Asmotherion]

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit! There are some fixes I need to see for the Warlock, but that's not one of them.
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.


So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

1) No. There are better Sorcerer Fixes. Like, give them an Eldritch Blast-like thematic Cantrip that gets Cha Bonus on every hit, without the need for diping Warlock. It's all they need to be a good class.
2) No. Warlocks literaly gain their powers by Bargain. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.
3) No. Sorcerers literally tell the laws of nature to bend to their will. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.
4) No. As much as I like 3.5e where that exists as a feat, in 5e Dex is already too good. I'd hear an arguement for Prof Bonus per turn.
5) Yes. Sure. Like proficiency bonus number of times per rest would be good.
6) Yes. I prefear Fighters that are pseudo-casters like the 3.5 ToB classes.
7) No AND Yes. Feats IMO should be every 3rd level. ASI could be every 4th level. But I agree they should be a different resource, and you shouldn't have to opt for only one of them (I assume that's what you mean).
8) Yes. At least in some cases. If the PCs are some form of epic heroes, then yes. If the PCs are an unlikely band of nobodies who bond together, then no need.
9) GOD YES. No comment.
10) Yes. I mean, one of the reasons magic is cool is because not everyone can do it. If everyone can do magic, magic is, well, let's just say less magical. Also, contrary to what WotC seems to think, not everyone wants to play a mage (shocking, I know, 'cause I'm one of the people who do like to play mages exclusively). Some people want their fantasy character to punsh the magic thing, and that's just fine. They deserve more options.

One more "FIX" I want to add: More spell slots. Those things should feel like an almost limitless resource at high levels. 6-9 spell slots of each level should do the trick.

[Amnestic]

2) No. Warlocks literaly gain their powers by Bargain. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.

They can gain their powers from a bargain, and Charisma can be a good stat because of that. But making a good bargain could also be intelligence based in navigating clauses and understanding terminology, rather than simply sweet-talking the other side.

But some warlocks - especially GOOlocks - don't get their powers from bargains at all, but rather from plumbing the depths of the universe and being bonded to these magical creatures, sometimes without either side actively choosing to do so. That's in the class description in the PHB.

Moving Warlocks to Int has a nice 'meta' symmetry too, in putting two full casters on each mental stat. Wiz/War, Cle/Dru, and Bar/Sor. With the Artificer, there's a halfcaster for each mental stat too.

[LibraryOgre]

Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights would have spellbooks and could learn spells.

[Theodoxus]

1) No. There are better Sorcerer Fixes. Like, give them an Eldritch Blast-like thematic Cantrip that gets Cha Bonus on every hit, without the need for diping Warlock. It's all they need to be a good class.

I like the idea of a Sorcerer only cantrip that's kind of like Chaotic Orb or Chaos Bolt, but tailored to each damage type.

Spoiler: Magical Mystery Bolt

Show

Upon casting, roll a d8, this determines the type of damage.
1) Force, deals 1d4+Cha mod. Special: no hit required.
2) Acid, on a hit, deals 1d6+Cha mod. Special: repeats damage the next round.
3) Thunder, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: Con save or be deafened until the start of the caster's next round.
4) Psychic, on a hit, deals 1d10+Cha mod. Special: If the damage would reduce the target to 0 hit points, it leaves them unconscious and stable instead.
5) Fire, on a hit, deals 1d10+Cha mod. Special: Dex save or damage repeats the next round.
6) Cold, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: Slows the target by 10', non-stacking.
7) Poison, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: deals 1d12+Cha mod if the target is already below maximum hit points.
8) Lighting, on a hit, deals 1d6+Cha mod. Special: target can't take reactions until the start of the caster's next round.

All damage increases by 1 die at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels.

Since the Force bolt quickly exceeds Magic Missile, I don't think it would be fair to let the caster determine the damage type, hence the random roll.

One more "FIX" I want to add: More spell slots. Those things should feel like an almost limitless resource at high levels. 6-9 spell slots of each level should do the trick.

ETA: I think the easiest way to replicate this 'Fix' is to just let all casters have their slots refresh on a short rest. Then, triple the number Warlocks get to compensate.