D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

77IM said:

I feel like a few minor tweaks could fix things, and I'm hoping 6E includes them.

Click to expand...

So....let's pivot this discussion to what those few minor things would be. Unfortunately every time this discussion starts, people start tossing out pretty major rewrites to the game.

But here's my wish list:

1) Make archery a little bit less effective, perhaps by making it harder to shoot into a melee, and/or suffering opportunity attacks when using it next to enemies. I'd love to see a tilt back toward melee, and more stabby rogues.

2) Find ways to avoid cookie cutter stats and the race to 20. I would also include in that a way to let us take more feats without feeling like we are making a sub-optimal choice. Feats are fun, but ASIs are almost always mechanically better than feats (except for a couple of OP feats that, as a result, are way too common) so it feels like a choice trap. Variant human consequently feels like another choice trap for those of us who love feats. (c.f. @lowkey13's thread about ASIs, which at the moment I'm having trouble finding).

3) Make all the stats more important to all classes, making everybody a bit more MAD. E.g., Dex builds should get more benefit from Str, and Str builds should get more benefit from Dex. Etc. Everybody using their primary stat as their attack modifier is just...lame. It's all become so vanilla and undifferentiated. As it is now we might as well have 3 stats and call them "Primary Stat", "Dump Stat", and "Constitution".

4) Shift some of the abilities from base class to sub-class, creating more design space in the base classes, and design more abilities that give choices (e.g. Totem Warrior choices, Metamagic selections, Expertise, etc.) to create a bit more variability.

5) Tweak the weapons list a little. Make whips light, for one. Also make spears better. Martial and 1d8/1d10 Versatile would be good, but I also like "as a bonus action as part of the Attack action, extend your reach by 5'" and both at once would make it better than sword/axe/hammer. I guess really I'd like to see ALL the 'standard' versatile weapons (sword, axe, hammer) have a little something special goody like that.

6) Re-balance the spells.

7) Slow down leveling.

I'll leave off my specific quibbles with the various classes. Clearly some of them need some tweaking.

8) Oh, and reading the above, give all the monsters more tricks and abilities and special tactics. Too many of them are just HP bags.

ad_hoc said:

Is it though?

Or is it just that the group doesn't like it.

A game not being someone's preference doesn't make it a bad game. Just because something doesn't work in practice for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.

The OP just sounds like they don't like 5e. And that's fine. Maybe you don't either which is also fine. Don't hold your breath for 6e. I think we are at least 10 years out, probably more.

Also, here is a good DM tip for you: Let the players keep track of their characters. It takes a lot less work that way. Let them say when a trait applies or anything else. I write down their AC and PP and that's it.

Click to expand...

It's definitely possible that a rule can work well for some groups and not others, or even for some individuals and not others. BUT I've played enough other role-playing games to have experienced rules SIMILAR to Inspiration, but which work much better, for most people. For example, I'm terrible at arithmetic, so to me, Advantage/Disadvantage is an amazing, wonderful rule.

I love 5E, and I'm not afraid to criticize it. No game is perfect, and I think these very forums are the ideal place to discuss what does and doesn't work -- you folks really are the experts, compared to the vast majority of players. For example, for my next campaign, I am totally going to steal your idea of giving advantage any time the Traits apply, and making the players call out for it.

Yeah. What I'm saying about "missed opportunities" is that I feel like 5e came close, but for me it slightly missed the mark, and maybe a little tweaking here and there might make it a little better fit. Or in the cases where it doesn't really impact the game (inspiration for example), maybe just pull it out to streamline the experience (or replace it altogether).
It seems like the designers were reluctant to take a stance on certain aspects (backgrounds, tactical combat) that maybe house rules could improve the game.

Oofta said:

About the only thing in the OP that I agree with is that inspiration is generally underutilized in many games ... but that doesn't make it a bad rule. Several people have made suggestions that I may try for my next campaign. As far as people wanting something more like Critical Role ... you mean people having fun and role playing their character instead of just being a glorified dice game? And why would it matter if newbies want that? Find a group of old grognards to play with.

In any case, the first thing that pops to mind is "Don't let the door hit you on the *** on the way out." Or maybe just a simple "no game works for everyone and acknowledging that is not a bad thing" If you aren't looking for advice or providing feedback why bother announcing it to the anonymous void?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a grognard, but I have never needed Critical Role to show me how to roleplay. It's designed for entertainment. It's like watching the Bachelor to find out how to date.
Many of the players I know who champion it are the type who will steal from your character and betray them because it's "dramatic for the story." And the DMs play NPCs as if they were PCs taking all the spotlight and will cancel sessions if they think their players aren't acting "in character."
So yeah, it's good for the hobby like Big Bang Theory is good for geek culture.

I listen to the new season of critical role on my commute and I love it. I love Mercer as a story telling DM (though he is a bit hit and miss on the rules, for an experience DM) and I love the great role play. Now there is a lot in the CR game that is playing as entertainment, mostly Sam as Nott, and I hope most players that watch it understand that element but maybe not.

I don’t know why the people who champion the show would DM NPCs to steal the spotlight because that isn’t the case on the show. Mercer has some NPCs that will stay with me but with the exception of a villain they never step into the spotlight. I could see some newer DM’s trying to replicate the Guest Stars with NPC’s which would be bad. The Guest Stars play as PC’s sharing the spotlight, and sometimes taking it for a session, add to the show and would be great for a drop in player, (I have a drop in player from out of state who will play one or two sessions and I hope her character takes a key role for that time) but would be bad if it was the DM running them week after week.

And for canceling a session if they don’t play in character, well that’s a session 0 issue, it should have been defined what game you are playing. I DM for friends and family and we are slowly expanding the RP element, (I’m not forcing it, just as the years have gone on the players have become more comfortable with RPing and are finally starting to play off of each other’s characters and utilize their backgrounds.)

Long post short, to late I know, I love CR, but it didn’t teach me to RP, I’ve been doing that for years, spent a good long time in an awesome SWTOR play by post RP, but I enjoy CR and listening to it has given me many great ideas.

Elfcrusher said:

So....let's pivot this discussion to what those few minor things would be. Unfortunately every time this discussion starts, people start tossing out pretty major rewrites to the game.

Click to expand...

Ah, my favorite mini-game! Your wish list is pretty different than mine. I don't disagree with anything you've written, just most of it would not be quite as high up on my TODO list.

To prevent considering major rewrites, I try to think about potential 6E changes in terms of their compatibility impact, that is, how big of a pain it will be to convert from 5E to 6E. I'd like 6E to be so compatible with 5E that you can continue to use adventures and setting supplements written for 5E without any conversion at all.

1) My main beef with 5E is the action economy. Bonus actions and Extra Attack are both very confusing; I've seen too many players, both new AND old, screw this up. There are a bunch of ways they could simplify this, while also encouraging players to describe actions more naturally and less game-mechanically. Compatibility Impact: Moderate. The "bonus action" language is found throughout the game, so changing this language would mean a conversion process for any rule that used bonus actions (and possibly Extra Attack). Fortunately, very few adventures or setting books really mention bonus actions, except in a few places (like custom magic items or NPC stat blocks).

2) I'd rebalance a few things, especially feats. I'd call the current spell balance "OK" -- like it's not terrible, but there are some weird protrusions that could be sanded down. Likewise for classes/subclasses -- there are a few that are noticeably better or worse, but most are pretty even. Feats, OTOH, are mostly either overpowered or underpowered. But the concept is fine, so it's just rebalancing the specifics that is needed. Compatibility Impact: Minimal. As long as the names stay the same, the rules can change. For example, if an enemy wizard in an adventure has phantasmal killer prepared, and then 6E rewrites phantasmal killer to actually be useful, the adventure doesn't need to be modified in any way to reflect that change.

3) I've never played or run a campaign in which Inspiration wasn't house-ruled, either eventually or up-front. Because Inspiration is a meta-mechanic, I'd actually like it if the core rules included 3-4 variants you could pick from. (Right now there are 2 variants: Use Inspiration, or don't.) Compatibility Impact: Minimal. Because Inspiration is currently optional, it's hardly mentioned outside of the PHB and DMG.

4) Magic Item Power Ratings. I understand why this wasn't in 5E, to try to move away from the "magic items are required" mentality of 4E, but I feel the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. The "rarity" system doesn't work; rarity doesn't correlate super well to utility, and it's too coarse-grained. I feel like: building encounters would be hard without monster CRs, and by the same token, handing out treasure is hard without Magic Item Power Ratings. Plus, you could use such ratings to judge whether all the PCs were roughly balanced in terms of items. Compatibility Impact: Moderate, because items found in adventures and supplements would need to receive ratings, or go through a conversion process to get a rating.

5) Rebalancing abilities, particularly, making Intelligence less of a dump stat. For most PCs, Intelligence is ONLY used for Knowledge checks, and I find the frequency of Knowledge checks varies wildly by group and DM. It's kind of a playstyle thing. For example, I find myself rarely calling for Knowledge checks, just because I'd rather just tell the PCs what they know. Because of such playstyle differences, I don't really have a great suggestion for how to make Intelligence more generally relevant. Compatibility Impact: Unsure, because I don't have a solution proposed, but I suspect you could do this with a pure rules change, and not need to change any NPC stats or anything, which would make the impact Minimal.

77IM said:

3) I've never played or run a campaign in which Inspiration wasn't house-ruled, either eventually or up-front. Because Inspiration is a meta-mechanic, I'd actually like it if the core rules included 3-4 variants you could pick from. (Right now there are 2 variants: Use Inspiration, or don't.)

Click to expand...

There's a third option in the DMG: only players award inspiration.

I have a few things I added for inspiration, mainly stolen from Star Trek Adventures (STA). They make inspiration a more frequent part of the game and help things move along.
1. If the heroes go out of their way to help someone, be heroic, complete an optional task, or achieve the best possible outcome for a quest, I will give inspiration. More inspiration creates a positive feedback loop like STA's Momentum.
2. I allow inspiration to be used to create minor alterations to the narrative like a higher Momentum spend in STA. Say the heroes need a climbing kit but no one has it. Someone can burn their inspiration to spend the money, and hey! They had a climbing kit all along. Another possibility would be having a hero trying to sneak in a locked window. Spending inspiration means that the window just happened to be unlocked.
3. My players used to spend time just looking at each other wondering who would suggest what to do next as I would prompt them, "So what do you want to do?" At our last session 0, I warned them that I would use STA's threat mechanic if they dithered too much. In the cases where they just talk around in circles or are indecisive for a long time, I award myself inspiration. I can then give an NPC advantage or one of the heroes disadvantage on a roll.

Tormyr said:

I have a few things I added for inspiration, mainly stolen from Star Trek Adventures (STA). They make inspiration a more frequent part of the game and help things move along.
1. If the heroes go out of their way to help someone, be heroic, complete an optional task, or achieve the best possible outcome for a quest, I will give inspiration. More inspiration creates a positive feedback loop like STA's Momentum.
2. I allow inspiration to be used to create minor alterations to the narrative like a higher Momentum spend in STA. Say the heroes need a climbing kit but no one has it. Someone can burn their inspiration to spend the money, and hey! They had a climbing kit all along. Another possibility would be having a hero trying to sneak in a locked window. Spending inspiration means that the window just happened to be unlocked.
3. My players used to spend time just looking at each other wondering who would suggest what to do next as I would prompt them, "So what do you want to do?" At our last session 0, I warned them that I would use STA's threat mechanic if they dithered too much. In the cases where they just talk around in circles or are indecisive for a long time, I award myself inspiration. I can then give an NPC advantage or one of the heroes disadvantage on a roll.

Click to expand...

i am glad that works for you and certainly every group plays to their preferences and should have rules that serve that...

But in the interest of the other side of this - i *wanted* to like STA especially since it did several things mechanically i find enjoyable - but - the momentum system and how integrated it was to every facet of the resolution system was what drove me to say loudly "no" as would my players as well. We have not liked in play systems with gimmick pools at the player's side that trump the in-game character abilities much, if at all, or that allow scene edits much or at all and STA basically weds those into the DNA of their resolution mechanics.

I watch Shield of Tomorrow for quite a bit of time and seeing any scene with any resolution involved almost always focus around momentum, momentum spent, momentum gained, momentum to edit, momentum to get more out of an ability etc etc etc... i think if you did one of those word clouds on their episodes the biggest word would be "momentum" over even the character names and name of their ship.

But, those are our biases and preferences based on our play with a variety of systems that maybe had none of those, a little bit of those or a lot of those... we favor the none of those.

As you might guess, when we play 5e, we do not use inspiration.

But... again... just my perspectives on our experiences.

Retreater said:

I've been running 5E on a consistent basis for several groups since it was officially released. Now that I'm basically leaving 5E, I'm looking at a few things that never quite worked for my groups and me.

1) Backgrounds. They just don't contribute enough to the character's abilities and feel tacked on.
2) Inspiration. Half-baked idea that is literally never remembered. Unless you have people always fishing for bonuses in annoying ways.
3) Treasure Hordes. This is in the DMG, and there is actually a recommended schedule for awarding magic items and treasure. Too bad no official products ever used these guidelines.
4) Advantage/Disadvantage. +5/-5 is too big of a modifier for most conditions. Flanking is lethal against the PCs (so we didn't use it).
5) Bonded Accuracy. A good idea in practice, except that it turns monsters into bags of hit points.

What did I miss?

Click to expand...

1- This implementation is pure filler for me, super generic on your background, super specific on what you receive and a lot of space wasted on a perk and character ideas. For that you don't need to waste pages and pages, you can ask players what they do and let them choose some related skills. At least if they had lots of professions like WFR and some skills for them that you can choose...
2- We don't use it.
3- We don't use it.
4- We used flanking one time and went back to practically zero optional rules (feats, multiclass...). Advantage and disadvantage works fast and is simple but sometimes you would prefer something more nuanced.
5- D&D always had bags of HPs.