Some stuff I would do to fix 5e

[Psyren]

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.

Eh - I would argue that wide-open featureless assume-a-spherical-cow-on-a-frictionless-plane whiterooms are far less common in practice than dungeon rooms. corridors, clearings and other arenas with obstacles, chokepoints and clutter.

And yes, OAs don't hit as hard since most creatures don't have a way to get more than one - but ultimately damage is still damage, so the point is that neither side can kite forever even if we were dealing with battlefields where hopping around from frontline to backline with impunity were trivial.

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.

Nah - casters are powerful enough as it is. The change I would have proposed is something 5.5e is already doing, making it so every spellcaster is a ritual caster as well as getting some form of resource recovery on a short rest.

[LibraryOgre]

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

Ok, I got a solution for this.

So, an AC or EK starts knowing 3 spells, two of which must be from their specified schools (Enchantment/Illusion or Abjuration/Evocation). However, instead of preparing level + attribute bonus, they prepare proficiency bonus + attribute bonus.

[Skrum]

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.

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

[Psyren]

For a normal table I would recommend flanking provide no more than a +2 bonus, and I'd probably even go as low as +1. Enough to reward positioning and make a tactical difference, not so much that the difference between flanking and not flanking becomes night-and-day or equivalent to a feat / rare+ magic item. I definitely think the default suggestion of advantage isn't well-thought-out - it's simultaneously too much (like having an extra concentration buff running on both sides of the battle) and too little (since advantage is much easier to get now than at the game's inception, often you end up with flanking doing nothing if it provides advantage rather than a flat bonus, which flies in the face of its design intent to reward positioning and tactical play.)

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

Exactly this. Clutter is fun!

Ok, I got a solution for this.

So, an AC or EK starts knowing 3 spells, two of which must be from their specified schools (Enchantment/Illusion or Abjuration/Evocation). However, instead of preparing level + attribute bonus, they prepare proficiency bonus + attribute bonus.

I don't know about this one; scaling spells known/prepared with PB means they get full progression even if they multiclass. An EK 3 / Wiz 17 with this rule would get an extra 8 spells known; even if those follow the EK school limitations of abjuration/evocation only, that frees up their wizard side to focus on the other 6 schools.

[Kurald Galain]

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.

I note that other bonuses (e.g. the Bless spell) default to giving a +1d4 bonus, so I'd say a +2 or +3 for flanking. Because let's face it, a +1 is saying "this doesn't actually matter but let's give it lip service".

I would definitely like 5E to be more tactical. Having a flanking rule helps, as does more interesting battlemaps. I wonder how the battlemaps are in the introductory adventure, and in low-level Organized Play adventures? Because that's where DMs would get their inspiration from.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.

I'm playing PF1 right now, and I'm not annoyed. It works just right. And 5e doesn't have it work relatively similarly for each class - there are still classes that don't get to use most of the economy, and classes who have options for every kind of action.

While I don't think full attacks are an entirely great concept, I do think that making movement too free isn't great either. 5e movement is exactly that - too free, both in the sense that it's too uninhibited and that it doesn't cost anything to move your full movement distance. There has to be something you would want (or even forced to, if you want to use a particular option) to spend movement on other than moving around. Those probably can't be full attack types of actions, but spellcasters being forced to stand still for a round to get some of the better spells off doesn't sound too bad to me.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.

+3 to +5 is an incredibly large bonus for 5e. +2 would be good.

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

I was not impressed with BG3's battlemaps either. They're good for a videogame, but there are quite a few cliffs of instant death (a reasonable GM would not put nearly as many in their game, I think), and maybe elevation for high ground ranged bonuses (not every environment has that, but it's already a thing that was sometimes happening in TT). Outside of height manipulation, it's actually pretty light on traps, non-fatal pits, etc. Anyway, I've seen those used in 5e games. They don't add nearly as much - either they're small enough to not be a bother, or large enough to not be considered part of the battleground and basically become another wall.

Now, I have myself experimented with more unusual mechanics like "zones you have to get out of/move your enemies out of ASAP", and the reverse, with spots you can't stand on for more than one round, plain old "terrain hurts you for every square moved" and so on - but I've also done that in 3.PF. There's nothing in 5e that makes those kinds of maps inherently better, and some 5e basics would probably make it worse (i.e. having to move 20 ft each turn is no longer a problem for anyone).

For a normal table I would recommend flanking provide no more than a +2 bonus, and I'd probably even go as low as +1. Enough to reward positioning and make a tactical difference, not so much that the difference between flanking and not flanking becomes night-and-day or equivalent to a feat / rare+ magic item. I definitely think the default suggestion of advantage isn't well-thought-out - it's simultaneously too much (like having an extra concentration buff running on both sides of the battle) and too little (since advantage is much easier to get now than at the game's inception, often you end up with flanking doing nothing if it provides advantage rather than a flat bonus, which flies in the face of its design intent to reward positioning and tactical play.)

We've played with DMG flanking in the early days. In a few sessions, everyone was mostly glad to be rid of it, because it really encouraged "conga lines of death" on the battlefield, a sort of armored caterpillar scenario where 1 is flanking 3 with 2 but is also flanked by 3 with 4, and 4 is in turn flanked by 1 and 5... It just looked silly, and due to how easy movement was, was still a no-brainer, so basically every melee, friend or enemy, rolled with advantage unless they were alone.

[Psyren]

I would definitely like 5E to be more tactical. Having a flanking rule helps, as does more interesting battlemaps. I wonder how the battlemaps are in the introductory adventure, and in low-level Organized Play adventures? Because that's where DMs would get their inspiration from.

I both have, and have run, the most recently created Starter Set (Dragons of Stormwreck Isle, July 2022.) Without spoilers, all of the combat maps - e.g. the Wreck of the Compass Rose, the Myconid Caves, and the Clifftop Observatory, contain chokepoints, pillars, and other terrain features like waist-deep water that can be used to affect movement and positioning or as cover, so I'd say new players are being introduced to such concepts quite well.

I note that other bonuses (e.g. the Bless spell) default to giving a +1d4 bonus, so I'd say a +2 or +3 for flanking. Because let's face it, a +1 is saying "this doesn't actually matter but let's give it lip service".

This is exactly why I'd keep the flanking bonus low though. Whatever bonus you apply from flanking (a) doesn't need concentration to maintain and (b) would therefore stack with other bonuses like Bless and Advantage. You'd risk breaking through Bounded Accuracy quickly, especially at low levels. Keep in mind too that several low level fights involve multiple enemies (the aforementioned starter set contains a good number of thsoe), who can thus benefit from flanking even more easily than the players can. 8 Stirges becomes a much scarier fight if they can get +8 to hit your party's tank instead of +5.

We've played with DMG flanking in the early days. In a few sessions, everyone was mostly glad to be rid of it, because it really encouraged "conga lines of death" on the battlefield, a sort of armored caterpillar scenario where 1 is flanking 3 with 2 but is also flanked by 3 with 4, and 4 is in turn flanked by 1 and 5... It just looked silly, and due to how easy movement was, was still a no-brainer, so basically every melee, friend or enemy, rolled with advantage unless they were alone.

Yeah we dumped DMG flanking quickly too.

[Dr.Samurai]

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.

Haven't experienced this. There are some monsters that are intended to zip around the battlefield and have features to that effect.

But for everything else, there's Grapple. Doesn't require a feat, a weapon, a variant rule, etc. Stock core option. Grab an enemy and they can't move anywhere. And now your movement can move them somewhere else.

Needless to say, I have not seen this be a problem in my games, even on open maps. Which is not to say that it doesn't ever happen, but it's not a consistent meta reality that monsters are just whirling dervishes all over the map moving willy nilly. There's a front line. If an enemy getting hit by my barbarian thinks to himself "this isn't worth it" the DM is usually making morale checks and/or retreating, not eating an OA to go target someone else.

For monsters that are too big to grapple, that's okay. Some monsters have that as a feature that they can't easily be physically restrained. But Grapple is a stock option on any character, and you can supplement that control with control spells or hazard/terrain spells and features from other party members. And that's before we get into a battlemap with features that limit or stop movement.

Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.

I agree that one issue with 5E is what it decided should be stuck in the DMG as variant rules. Climb on Another Creature, Disarm, Overrun, etc. are all interesting combat options that should have just been put in the normal rules.

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.

Agreed. Though 3rd edition gave you ways to make a standard action attack stronger, but yes the movement was clunky.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.

These days, everyone I play with is trying to stay away from melee, so I don't even know who I would be flanking with

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

100% agreed. I've never played BG3 but I've just noticed for myself in our games that when the terrain is interesting, my strength characters usually perform well because they have high jump distance, the athletics needed for climbing (or jumping depending on circumstances) and mobility options. And by knocking an enemy prone and cutting their speed in half, you limit how the enemy can interact with a more dynamic battlemap. Or pushing and dragging them to hazards.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough. May be that they wanted the game to seem as simple and straightforward as possible and everyone's been playing in giant featureless maps all this time.

[Witty Username]

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.

I figured that was rote memorization, the wizard grinded 2 spells into their head that can now never leave, which fits the wizard pretty well.

Now, I am going to utter some herasy, sorcerers should get arcane recovery and wizards should get metamagic.
Tinkering with the spell formula to get unexpected results is the work of experimental knowledge. Arcane recovery is the work of overflowing power.

At least if we are not going the 3.5 way and it makes sense for any spellcaster to be able to do,
Some hacking to use metamagic how the casters would
Cleric, channel divinity (druid can use a wild shape)
Sorcerer, font of magic
Wizard, prepare a modified version as a higher level spell

Still thinking on bard.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm playing PF1 right now, and I'm not annoyed. It works just right. And 5e doesn't have it work relatively similarly for each class - there are still classes that don't get to use most of the economy, and classes who have options for every kind of action.

Very true. Like, casters in 5E (if they aren't focused on melee) often have little or no use for their move or their bonus action.

traps, non-fatal pits, etc. Anyway, I've seen those used in 5e games. They don't add nearly as much - either they're small enough to not be a bother, or large enough to not be considered part of the battleground and basically become another wall.

It is likewise my experience that 5E DMs tend to use terrain that can largely be ignored. 5E's rules on diagonal movement and on OAs tend to make it rather easy to ignore terrain as well.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough.

Definitely.
Although to be fair, most players probably don't want tactical combat, so that's why it was designed so that positioning and tactics don't have much impact (except when using optional rules).

Whatever bonus you apply from flanking (a) doesn't need concentration to maintain and (b) would therefore stack with other bonuses like Bless and Advantage.

Well, if you don't want it to stack with Bless (which is a fair point) then just rule that it doesn't stack with Bless.

8 Stirges becomes a much scarier fight if they can get +8 to hit your party's tank instead of +5.

Given how easy 5E combats tend to be, I don't see that as a problem.

[Inquisitor]

Haven't experienced this. There are some monsters that are intended to zip around the battlefield and have features to that effect.

But for everything else, there's Grapple. Doesn't require a feat, a weapon, a variant rule, etc. Stock core option. Grab an enemy and they can't move anywhere. And now your movement can move them somewhere else.

Needless to say, I have not seen this be a problem in my games, even on open maps. Which is not to say that it doesn't ever happen, but it's not a consistent meta reality that monsters are just whirling dervishes all over the map moving willy nilly. There's a front line. If an enemy getting hit by my barbarian thinks to himself "this isn't worth it" the DM is usually making morale checks and/or retreating, not eating an OA to go target someone else.

For monsters that are too big to grapple, that's okay. Some monsters have that as a feature that they can't easily be physically restrained. But Grapple is a stock option on any character, and you can supplement that control with control spells or hazard/terrain spells and features from other party members. And that's before we get into a battlemap with features that limit or stop movement.

I agree that one issue with 5E is what it decided should be stuck in the DMG as variant rules. Climb on Another Creature, Disarm, Overrun, etc. are all interesting combat options that should have just been put in the normal rules.

Agreed. Though 3rd edition gave you ways to make a standard action attack stronger, but yes the movement was clunky.

These days, everyone I play with is trying to stay away from melee, so I don't even know who I would be flanking with

100% agreed. I've never played BG3 but I've just noticed for myself in our games that when the terrain is interesting, my strength characters usually perform well because they have high jump distance, the athletics needed for climbing (or jumping depending on circumstances) and mobility options. And by knocking an enemy prone and cutting their speed in half, you limit how the enemy can interact with a more dynamic battlemap. Or pushing and dragging them to hazards.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough. May be that they wanted the game to seem as simple and straightforward as possible and everyone's been playing in giant featureless maps all this time.

We don't use flanking rules, but given how strong the summons spells are I'm not sure flanking does much to help out the martials. As for who you'd be flanking with, I suppose the good news/ bad news side of this is that the answer can be whatever the casters decided to throw out there.

[Witty Username]

On flanking,
It is in use in both the game I DM and the game I am currently playing in.
It has come up 0 times.
The other DM has a modification to not allow creatures of larger size categories than the party to be flanked, I do not have such.

It turns out, it is easy to make a party and artillery squad.

[Dr.Samurai]

Good point about summons; our Druid does summon an elemental spirit.

One issue, for me, with Flanking is it forces your positioning. I prefer to keep enemies between me and other enemies, for cover and especially if there is a bottleneck. I’m a bit more conservative and probably wouldn’t go for Flanking if it meant enemies that wouldn’t otherwise have a clear shot at me now do.

[Sorinth]

As a note 5e is designed with Theatre of the Mind at the forefront which is always going to limit the nitty gritty tactical stuff.

For BG3 it wasn't just varied terrain they also added a bunch of rules like high/low elevation giving +/- 2 to hit and increased fall damage that made interacting with the terrain more beneficial and on top of that made some pretty big movement changes such as Longstrider as a ritual, BA jump, being able to make super elevated high jumps, etc...

With all the flanking talk I wonder if they shouldn't just implement a standardized mechanic that gives a +1d4 to a roll. You could give it out for flanking, ranged attacks from height, and even things like Bless or Guidance would then just reference that mechanic to prevent stacking too much.

[Psyren]

Well, if you don't want it to stack with Bless (which is a fair point) then just rule that it doesn't stack with Bless.

I don't want such a large bonus to stack with Magic/Elemental Weapon or Bardic Inspiration or Precision Attack or Focused Aim or Emboldening Bond etc etc either

Rather than building in a dozen exceptions for every potential low-level attack bonus in the game and wishing on a star that it stays future-proofed, I'd rather just keep the bonus in line with bounded accuracy philosophy to start with.

Given how easy 5E combats tend to be, I don't see that as a problem.

I'm aware, but in my opinion, a 60% or more hit buff for enemies designed to face new players strikes me as a bit more of a difficulty spike than the game needs.

[Theodoxus]

Tried the DMG Flanking. Made the game quite easy - the Rogue loved it, the Barbarian thought it basically replaced the need for Reckless Attack and hated it (the cleric liked not having to heal the Barbi as much).

I think if I were to use it again, I'd change it from Advantage (which really just makes flanking silly) to a d4 bonus to hit, akin to Bless, and stacking with it. I get the distaste of using d4s (they're annoying and inconveniently shaped, and hurt like a MFer when stepped on) but I've not heard any issues with Bless - people like their bonuses more than their request to use easier dice (though I could get behind a campaign to change d4s into d3+a (any boost to MM is a good thing in my book ;)

Anyway, Bless isn't the 'must have' that it was in the early days of 5E at my tables, so I don't see 2d4 much in my future if I adopt the rule. But even so, the average is +5... which comes out to the same general bonus as advantage (without the ensuing issues that true advantage provides). And the occasional +8 to hit just makes the player feel good too. Plus, its still dependent on the almighty d20; a 1 is still a 1, a 20 is still a 20...

I get the reason Advantage is used as a replacement for all the fiddley little numbers, but game bloat has changed the nature of Advantage and what it provides. I'm not saying going back to 3.PF style minutia, but some things currently granting advantage (like DMG flanking) work better with a small bonus (d3, d4) etc.

If you're really dead-set against the idea of a d4, I've also seen d3-1 for Flanking. It definitely more closely aligns with the Bounded Accuracy concept of tiny bonuses - and it makes the combat feel a bit more realistic. Sure, you might have an easier time hitting someone who's distracted (rolling that +2) or they might surprise you on how adroitly they're keeping their eye on you (rolling that 0). Whether such a rule would encourage flanking or not I'm not sure.

ETA (posting at work means it takes a LONG time to finish a thought - lol)

With all the flanking talk I wonder if they shouldn't just implement a standardized mechanic that gives a +1d4 to a roll. You could give it out for flanking, ranged attacks from height, and even things like Bless or Guidance would then just reference that mechanic to prevent stacking too much.

This is the kind of thing that I think a blanket d3-1 would really work with. You'd probably even want to actively stack them to boost the chances of overcoming the 1/3 chance of getting no bonus. Even then, how often would something like 4+ options be available in the same round?

[Skrum]

I mean, we're all just offering opinions about a variant/house rule, so there's no real weight to any of this. So do whatever yah want. But a principle I've come to appreciate is simplicity. There's enough to keep track of already, especially for the DM. If the bonus is going to come up all the time (like flanking does), just make it a flat bonus that's the average of what the dice you're considering. I'd vastly prefer +2 or +3 over 1d4, just because it's easier to remember, less adding, less searching for dice...

The reason I would favor a MINIMUM of +3 for flanking is because of AC values. Monsters getting a flank is often the only way tanky characters actually get hit. Ergo, getting flanked is SCARY. And it should be. Not wanting to get flanked ---> movement is that much more important.

Flanking in a featureless plane? Yeah, can end up with a caterpillar. But in practice, enemies dropping, new ones moving in, PC's shifting around, and combatants using walls to prevent flanks all add up to no caterpillars. Yes flanking is the defining aspect of combat, round to round. But it should be? Like, teaming up on an enemy? Yeah, that's a *feature,* not a bug.

As for smaller changes I wouldn't mind seeing/would be open to trying
- spells that took a "full round" to cast; can't move on the turn they're cast
- OA's triggering by leaving a threatened square, not just leaving reach

[Amechra]

I mean, if I had to implement flanking, I'd probably go for a damage boost or crit range increase instead of advantage or a bonus to attack rolls.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't want such a large bonus to stack with Magic/Elemental Weapon or Bardic Inspiration or Precision Attack or Focused Aim or Emboldening Bond etc etc either

So, you're fine with all six of those stacking, but flanking is the one that needs to be so small that it doesn't actually matter?

Nah. This calls for either a generic rule of "only one added die to a d20 roll", or more likely, just call Rule Of Cool. If the players want to spend resources to make a big teamwork combo, let them.

[Skrum]

I mean, if I had to implement flanking, I'd probably go for a damage boost or crit range increase instead of advantage or a bonus to attack rolls.

Not being critical of any idea here, just musing -

Crit range increase is an odd one, due to the weird way crits work in 5e. A GWM character cares a whole lot less about crits than a paladin does, for example. Also some monsters have large damage dice, and others have more bonus damage. For that reason, I would be hesitant to go this route.

Increased damage is interesting. It'll make combat more swingy, as a flanking monster is no more likely to hit but if they get a good roll they might land a really crushing blow (obviously it matters how big this damage boost is. +5? +10? Double the damage from the attribute used for the attack?).

[TheHalfAasimar]

I figured that was rote memorization, the wizard grinded 2 spells into their head that can now never leave, which fits the wizard pretty well.

Now, I am going to utter some herasy, sorcerers should get arcane recovery and wizards should get metamagic.
Tinkering with the spell formula to get unexpected results is the work of experimental knowledge. Arcane recovery is the work of overflowing power.

At least if we are not going the 3.5 way and it makes sense for any spellcaster to be able to do,
Some hacking to use metamagic how the casters would
Cleric, channel divinity (druid can use a wild shape)
Sorcerer, font of magic
Wizard, prepare a modified version as a higher level spell

Still thinking on bard.

Quite frankly, I agree with the sorcerers get arcane recovery and wizards get Metamagic... I think I know my new homebrew rules.

[Amnestic]

Not being critical of any idea here, just musing -

Crit range increase is an odd one, due to the weird way crits work in 5e. A GWM character cares a whole lot less about crits than a paladin does, for example. Also some monsters have large damage dice, and others have more bonus damage. For that reason, I would be hesitant to go this route.

Would go great with my "crits=double damage instead of how they normally work" houserule though. Equality for all.

[Inquisitor]

Good point about summons; our Druid does summon an elemental spirit.

One issue, for me, with Flanking is it forces your positioning. I prefer to keep enemies between me and other enemies, for cover and especially if there is a bottleneck. I’m a bit more conservative and probably wouldn’t go for Flanking if it meant enemies that wouldn’t otherwise have a clear shot at me now do.

Yeah, I can't even imagine how strong a Shepherd would be with flanking; I think I'd just hand my DM screen to the player using it and say, "You deal with it."

[Psyren]

So, you're fine with all six of those stacking

Some require concentration and therefore don't. Others require a limited daily resource, or both. Flanking requires neither.

Nah. This calls for either a generic rule of "only one added die to a d20 roll", or more likely, just call Rule Of Cool.

Nah. Small bonuses fit better with bounded accuracy. Also, +3 isn't a "die."

[2D8HP]

I’d have the DMG’s “gritty realism” variant be the default, chuck most, maybe all, feats, and chuck most classes, plus races.

The remaining player character races would be: elves or gnomes, half-elves if you keep elves, humans, orcs, and half-orcs.

Have just three classes: Clerics/Paladins (one combined class) that would have to have a Lawful or Neutral alignment, Fighter/Rogues (one combined class), Warlocks/Wizards (one combined class, all Wizards would have to have a Warlock pact to unlock many magic abilities, at a risk to their lives/sanity/souls, though they could get some spells just through study, but there magic would be much more limited. All magic-users with a Warlock pact would have to have a Chaotic Alignment).

[Kurald Galain]

Some require concentration and therefore don't. Others require a limited daily resource, or both. Flanking requires neither.

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

[Mastikator]

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

If you want to make tactics important then flanking is your enemy (or perhaps training wheels). I've been in campaigns with and without flanking and in my experience flanking adds one tactical option but eclipses all other tactical options. The only time I've seen flanking add tactics to the game is where there previously was ZERO tactics involved, which is often caused by a combination of an uncreative/boring DM plus uncreative/cowardly players. The DM needs to create dynamic and interesting battle areas and use tactics against the players, and then encourage stunts, tactics and teamwork. (and the players need to step up their game and not be so lazy, boring and uncreative)
That is more work than enabling flanking to get tactics off from zero, but it allows the tactics to proceed off the bare minimum.

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e" I'd add a chapter to the DMG that helps the DM with creating dynamic combat arenas, some tips on how to use NPCs tactically against players, and how to encourage and enable the players to do stunts.

[Ignimortis]

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e" I'd add a chapter to the DMG that helps the DM with creating dynamic combat arenas, some tips on how to use NPCs tactically against players, and how to encourage and enable the players to do stunts.

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e", I'd actually add some mechanical backing that lets players do stunts that are reasonably supported by their character sheets. I've done cool and crazy stuff as a Monk, because as a Monk, I can run on walls, water, and possibly on ceilings depending on how the DM interprets the text, jump very far and move very fast. As a non-monk, I can't do that. Maybe a Barbarian can replicate some of that, I suppose, but it'd be iffy. Regular Fighter? Think again.

[Mastikator]

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e", I'd actually add some mechanical backing that lets players do stunts that are reasonably supported by their character sheets. I've done cool and crazy stuff as a Monk, because as a Monk, I can run on walls, water, and possibly on ceilings depending on how the DM interprets the text, jump very far and move very fast. As a non-monk, I can't do that. Maybe a Barbarian can replicate some of that, I suppose, but it'd be iffy. Regular Fighter? Think again.

A regular fighter can swing across the ballroom on a chandelier and attack the bad guy at the other side. A paladin can jump off a bridge onto knight on horseback, knock him off his saddle and take over his mount. A rogue can jump off a roof with rope in hand, swing down through a window and deliver a sneak attack on the guy in the room. A ranger can run across the river by jumping from crocodile to crocodile to reach the lizardfolk shaman at the back.
Any one of these may require an ability check, not to succeed, but to gain a benefit for doing something cool.

I suspect trying to codify these would be very difficult and not give enough, what we need is to teach DMs to create cool and fun scenarios, teach them to encourage and reward players for being creative, and teach players to be creative and fun.

[Psyren]

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

The idea here is to make powerful bonuses require tradeoffs, like concentration. "Tactics" is not a tradeoff, it's a thing you'd be doing anyway, so it definitely shouldn't grant a bonus as large as +3.

A compromise I could accept, if you think +1 is too small - let flanking grant a bonus = ½ proficiency. That keeps flanking from providing a huge +3 bonus at low levels, but eventually it does scale up to +3 at very high levels.

If you want to make tactics important then flanking is your enemy (or perhaps training wheels). I've been in campaigns with and without flanking and in my experience flanking adds one tactical option but eclipses all other tactical options. The only time I've seen flanking add tactics to the game is where there previously was ZERO tactics involved, which is often caused by a combination of an uncreative/boring DM plus uncreative/cowardly players. The DM needs to create dynamic and interesting battle areas and use tactics against the players, and then encourage stunts, tactics and teamwork. (and the players need to step up their game and not be so lazy, boring and uncreative)
That is more work than enabling flanking to get tactics off from zero, but it allows the tactics to proceed off the bare minimum.

This too; if flanking is too powerful, it actually removes options from the game. A +3 bonus or advantage (when you have no other sources of such) would be foolish for either side to forego, so you end up with the melee conga-line-braid mentioned upthread.