D&D 5E Things through all the playtests I have not liked

[Jester David]

Rules for being drunk period need to go. There shouldn't be rules for being drunk because if anyone is seriously taking being drunk seriously, they need to get a grip. This really sounds like someone watched that youtube video about "what really happens in D&D" and thought we needed rules for it.

I've never had a campaign where someone didn't end up in a tavern and get drunk at some point. There should be rules for this.

It's also not "drunk" but "intoxicated", so you can imagine it being imposed by poisons and drugs and the like.

 

[Li Shenron]

The HD dice pool. I am not sold that the added complication generates that much added benefit. Just say you can heal up to your HP total per day. Have 20 HP you can heal 20 HP per day. You need to initiate a heal with a short rest and binding wounds as usual.

I wholeheartedly agree with this...

In our playtests, my players complained that they were often hurt just by 1-3hp of damage and that was too low to risk wasting a good roll on HD during a short rest. They wanted to save their HD and healing hit until they were hurt more, but at the same time they thought their characters wouldn't want to do that. I didn't necessarily agree with their rationale, but in my case the players were unanimously.

Maybe it would be better to just say that you can heal during the day the same amount of HP you have when you're at "full health". So if your PC has 20 HP, he can also heal up to 20 HP in a day with short rests. And ditch the healing kits completely, if you're pushing the idea that HP are minor scratches and "luck" then you don't even need a healing kit.

 

[Jester David]

Racial damage bonuses. It is unnecessary. For me it is enough to say dwarves like hafted weapons. It does not need to be hard coded into the system and force a players acceptance of those weapons for that race. And why do only PC races get it? It just needs to go.

It's not forcing you. It may be optimal, but you can choose not to be optimal. There's no penalty. A dwarf with a longsword is just as good as a human with a longsword.
If this was just flavour, it would likely be ignored. Suddenly, very few dwarves would use axes or hammers. Some because the players want the best weapon, which is not necessarily dwarf centric. Others because they want to stand out and be special, and playing a race against type is an easy way.

Racial training isn't perfect. Personally, I'd like to see races grant proficiency with those weapons to classes without proficiency and boost the damage for classes with proficiency already.

1d6 damage reduction for being drunk, please just remove this. Add temporary HP if you think people have to be able to take more damage while drunk.

I love the DR in intoxicated. Who hasn't seen (or watched in a movie) the drunk guy just taking hits but refusing to go down. It's such a classic trope and mental image. The reduction is a nice way of keeping that while making it last for more than a single hit.

You may not have noticed, but temporary hitpoints also don't exist in 5e.

Contested rolls, they are too random. Opposed rolls should be against the save of the opponent. both roll. if one succeeds and another fails there is a victor. If both fail it continues, if both succeed it continues. This is really key in the arena of stealth.

So instead on two opposed rolls there is three or four rolls? This seems needlessly complicated.
And as you don't add skill dice/bonuses to saves, it would making hiding much harder.
It also means you never really get better at many things as saves are static. After a point, you don't see much improvement because rolling very high above the save confers no extra bonus, you might as well have rolled "1' higher than the DC.

The HD dice pool. I am not sold that the added complication generates that much added benefit. Just say you can heal up to your HP total per day. Have 20 HP you can heal 20 HP per day. You need to initiate a heal with a short rest and binding wounds as usual.

This is a little too precise. There is never any wasted healing or underhealing where you just accept being a couple hitpoints down. It's not that difficult for 4e players to grasp, being essentially randomized healing surges.
I've had some trouble explaining it to 3e/PF players but it hasn't been that complicated, just one new thing to learn in a system of new things.
If you hate it, just average the results. A d10 heals 6, a d8 heals 5 and a d6 heals 4.

Coupe de Grace: two hits kills anything. this is extremely weak vs. low HP monsters and extremely good vs. high HP monsters. There needs to be a scale in there or at minimum a save, or something. IDK what but something.

Coup de grace options have never worked perfectly. Either they just injure but seldom kill or they're extremely lethal. But I've only seen them come up a couple times, so it's not a huge part of the game.
I'm reasonably okay with this version. It's better than the auto-crit alternative (which does little to powerful creatures). More often than not, when you coup de grace, you're either taking out a fallen creature (1 hit kills regardless) or fighting a weaker non-boss monster. You're never going to sneak up on Asmodeus while he's sleeping and cut his throat.

INT and CHA saves are ill defined. Need I say more? They need to be more cut and dry. I like WIS to notice stuff, INT to figure out stuff, and CHA to resist mental stuff. It can be mixed in a different way, it just needs some definition.

This will come over time as people get better at thinking of options that target those stats. It's a gap, so people will exploit and seek to fill it.

Missing concept - weapon size. I think weapon size was a great move forward with 3e. Removing it in 4e was a step backwards. I do not mind simplifying the system but a giants greatsword should do more damage than a humans, it is just that simple. I am not seeing that happen in any kind of consistent way across the rules.

I miss this as well...

 

[Szatany]

I love the DR in intoxicated. Who hasn't seen (or watched in a movie) the drunk guy just taking hits but refusing to go down.

Were those hits sword slashes or bullet holes? I doubt that - they were punches, kicks etc. right? Which would be some sort of subdual damage (3e concept), not normal damage.

 

[KidSnide]

1d6 damage reduction for being drunk, please just remove this. Add temporary HP if you think people have to be able to take more damage while drunk.

Agreed. I think it's useful to have an Intoxicated condition, but the DR is inane. I suppose it could have a role as an optional rule for "silly, over-the-top" styles of game, but it doesn't belong in the core rules.

Contested rolls, they are too random. Opposed rolls should be against the save of the opponent. both roll. if one succeeds and another fails there is a victor. If both fail it continues, if both succeed it continues. This is really key in the arena of stealth.

I'm not sure about your solution, but I agree that the math of contested rolls is bizarrely swingy, and for no good reason.

Racial damage bonuses. It is unnecessary. For me it is enough to say dwarves like hafted weapons. It does not need to be hard coded into the system and force a players acceptance of those weapons for that race. And why do only PC races get it? It just needs to go.

I disagree here. I always liked racial damage bonuses for the weapons associated with the race. If feats were 3e/4e style, then I agree that it's appropriate for a feat, but I don't think that kind of minor bonus works with the feat concept for D&DN. I don't want a dwarf warrior to have to pick a dwarf-themed specialty to get a racial bonus. It works much better to give the bonus to all dwarves.

The HD dice pool. I am not sold that the added complication generates that much added benefit. Just say you can heal up to your HP total per day. Have 20 HP you can heal 20 HP per day. You need to initiate a heal with a short rest and binding wounds as usual.

I like the random element in HD healing, and I don't think the "pool of 20 HP" is really any less complicated. The HD operates like clerical and potion healing. I don't see the advantage in having both "dice healing" and "pool healing."

-KS

 

[Sadrik]

So instead on two opposed rolls there is three or four rolls? This seems needlessly complicated.
And as you don't add skill dice/bonuses to saves, it would making hiding much harder.
It also means you never really get better at many things as saves are static. After a point, you don't see much improvement because rolling very high above the save confers no extra bonus, you might as well have rolled "1' higher than the DC.

No you don't understand. It is really super simple. Take sneak, rather than a directly opposed roll the DM says this area has a hide of 15. This takes into account not just the skill of the sneaker but the actual environment... Anyway there would be a chart just like the climb chart with different DCs and how difficult it is to hide in the environment. Then the spotter would roll against that same DC to spot a hidden creature in the environment. So DC 15 and the character can spot. Same 2 rolls the only difference is it takes the environment into play and it mitigates the I am the ubersneaker. I think the ubersneaker should be there though, so this can be handled with feats, spells and class features (e.g., invisibility, hide in shadows, camouflage etc.)

Carry this concept to all of the contested rolls and you have a much better core rule. Diplomacy, grappling, sneaking, opposed strength rolls are the most common uses of the contested roll, and all can be turned into the much improved rule I propose above.

 

[Jester David]

No you don't understand. It is really super simple. Take sneak, rather than a directly opposed roll the DM says this area has a hide of 15. This takes into account not just the skill of the sneaker but the actual environment... Anyway there would be a chart just like the climb chart with different DCs and how difficult it is to hide in the environment. Then the spotter would roll against that same DC to spot a hidden creature in the environment. So DC 15 and the character can spot. Same 2 rolls the only difference is it takes the environment into play and it mitigates the I am the ubersneaker. I think the ubersneaker should be there though, so this can be handled with feats, spells and class features (e.g., invisibility, hide in shadows, camouflage etc.)

Carry this concept to all of the contested rolls and you have a much better core rule. Diplomacy, grappling, sneaking, opposed strength rolls are the most common uses of the contested roll, and all can be turned into the much improved rule I propose above.

So instead of both people rolling and seeing what's higher, both people roll and the DM consults a chart and if both roll high you roll again? And again. And again...

It also means if the DC is 15 and the rogue rolls a 32 but the Orc rolls a 16, the rogue might as well have rolled a 16 as well.

It also means if the rogue is trying to sneak up on a blind deaf and dumb kid (perhaps one distracted by, say, a game of pinball) but the room is brightly lit there's a high DC and the rogue might easily fail...

It's different from climbing because you roll and compare on how hard the surface is and then move on. You're not being opposed, the other party is inactive. They're literally a wall. Essentially the DC is them "taking 10" because they can't make things harder or easier.

 

[Sadrik]

So instead of both people rolling and seeing what's higher, both people roll and the DM consults a chart and if both roll high you roll again? And again. And again...

It also means if the DC is 15 and the rogue rolls a 32 but the Orc rolls a 16, the rogue might as well have rolled a 16 as well.

It also means if the rogue is trying to sneak up on a blind deaf and dumb kid (perhaps one distracted by, say, a game of pinball) but the room is brightly lit there's a high DC and the rogue might easily fail...

It's different from climbing because you roll and compare on how hard the surface is and then move on. You're not being opposed, the other party is inactive. They're literally a wall. Essentially the DC is them "taking 10" because they can't make things harder or easier.

You still dont have it. Under this the rogue's sneaking has nothing to do with the spotter. The rogues sneak roll only goes against the environment (could be really easy could be really hard). The spotters roll goes against the environment and their own circumstances (blind condition, distracted).

So for the sneaker it is not different from a climb check, roll and move on. You could even have something where when you fail the check you make no progress that round similar to how climbing works. If you fail by 5 you expose yourself and are considered not hidden.

I can see invisibility giving a penalty to spotting. I can see a rogue class feature giving a penalty to a spotter. I can see a ranger having something similar too. It is a very easy concept and it fixes the extreme randomness of contested rolls and the outlier (d20+40) problem all in one succinct way, which is to bring them into the standard method of rolling checks.

 

[Jester David]

You still dont have it. Under this the rogue's sneaking has nothing to do with the spotter. The rogues sneak roll only goes against the environment (could be really easy could be really hard). The spotters roll goes against the environment and their own circumstances (blind condition, distracted).

So for the sneaker it is not different from a climb check, roll and move on. You could even have something where when you fail the check you make no progress that round similar to how climbing works. If you fail by 5 you expose yourself and are considered not hidden.

I can see invisibility giving a penalty to spotting. I can see a rogue class feature giving a penalty to a spotter. I can see a ranger having something similar too. It is a very easy concept and it fixes the extreme randomness of contested rolls and the outlier (d20+40) problem all in one succinct way, which is to bring them into the standard method of rolling checks.

What I'm getting is this: So the rogue makes the check and if they succeed they're hidden. But the spotter makes the check against a set DC to spot the rogue. Terrain matters more to hiding than the skill of the hider.

So, why even have the rogue roll? Just have the spotter make a check to determine their perception. Or just have a set DC and have the rogue.

I don't see the benefit other than added complexity the odd chance of having the rogue flub and fail to hide, negating the need for the spotter to even have to roll, even if their check would likely lower.

It's just odd. But if you want to play like that, write it up as a houserule and try it at our table. See how it plays and let us know.

 

[Sadrik]

What I'm getting is this: So the rogue makes the check and if they succeed they're hidden. But the spotter makes the check against a set DC to spot the rogue. Terrain matters more to hiding than the skill of the hider.

So, why even have the rogue roll?

I do believe you have it now.

So the sneaker rolls because if they are in a brightly lit room and are trying to hide without anything to hide behind, it is effectively like hiding in plain sight and that would require a pretty epic roll to do. Then again if they are in a dark cave with lots of stuff to hide behind, it would be a pretty easy roll. As you can see there is some gradation in there that is completely lost with an opposed roll.

Now this rule is not specifically about sneaking and spotting. This covers all opposed rolls. Opposed grapple checks, opposed diplomacy checks, opposed strength checks. Opposed checks are too random and do not handle the d20+40 problem. Moving them into the standard rolling system, fixes both of those problems. The standard rolling d20+bonus vs a DC is a solid mechanic.

One more example, imagine if savings throws were all opposed rolls. So rather than when a spell caster casts a spell and it provides a DC for you to beat on your save roll, you instead have to beat a d20+bonus roll. This could make the spell highly effective or highly ineffective. I think this illustrates the problem with opposed rolls quite nicely.

I hope the devs remove them.