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

[I'm A Banana]

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 actually think it DOES need to be hard-coded. If dwarves use axes and elves use bows, there should be a mechanical advantage for those who do so, and an incentive for even those who do not to pick up that weapon and use it.

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.

Really? Methinks someone may be taking a game about magical gumdrop elves a little too seriously if they think an "intoxicated" status is ruining their fun.

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.

It's a math tweak, but this seems...a little overly complex as a default rule. I don't know what's "too random" about contested rolls -- to random for what purpose?

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.

Rolling dice is more fun than math. But an easy tweak if you prefer math.

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.

Why shouldn't we be able to kill helpless creatures by stabbing them in the face (and maybe swirling the sword around a little bit)?

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.

I'm pretty much into that idea.

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 don't think we need weapon sizes per se. I've got no problem saying "Small creatures need one extra hand to wield a weapon (Light -> one-handed -> two-handed), Large creatures need one less hand (two handed -> one-handed-> light), and anything that goes off the charts is either too big or two small to be used as a weapon for that creature."

Why make 7 flavors of longsword, when 1 flavor of longsword fills the "dagger for a giant, bastard sword for a halfling, normal sword for a human" niche?

 

[Sadrik]

I actually think it DOES need to be hard-coded. If dwarves use axes and elves use bows, there should be a mechanical advantage for those who do so, and an incentive for even those who do not to pick up that weapon and use it.

NPC elves and dwarves should be using those weapons, what the PCs do should not be hampered by mechanics like these. These types of rules are crap in my opinion.

It's a math tweak, but this seems...a little overly complex as a default rule. I don't know what's "too random" about contested rolls -- to random for what purpose?

You will have to read the some of the other recent posts to get a better understanding.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I actually think it DOES need to be hard-coded. If dwarves use axes and elves use bows, there should be a mechanical advantage for those who do so, and an incentive for even those who do not to pick up that weapon and use it.

I disagree. I think Dwarves should use axes because Dwarves like axes.

Actually, I think Dwarves should use all sorts of weapons. Is it just because of Gimli that we think all Dwarves use axes? Thorin used a sword.

 

[DonAdam]

At the moment, long swords are a sub-par weapon for elves, unless they're focusing on Strength. If they have better-than average Dexterity, a rapier or scimitar (being Finesse weapons) are better.

Indeed. Long swords should be finesse weapons for elves.

 

[Jester David]

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.

This seems terribly unintuitive compared to rolling twice and seeing who is higher. While opposed rolls do not reflect the environment, it's not hard to impose a penalty to one roll (a distracted sentry or a well-lit room) or even advantage/disadvantage.

Adding DCs to the mix just complicates things. It adds a second variable, a second row of outcomes.
With straight opposed rolls there are two outcomes: one roll is higher or the other roll is higher.
With DCs there are four outcomes: one roll is higher than the DC, the other is higher than the DC, both rolls are higher than the DC, neither roll is higher than the DC. In half the case, the outcome is clear (one person rolled high beat the DC while the other did not). In the other two cases things are fuzzy. If both parties rolled high, then nothing is really resolved. The rogue is hidden but the spotter also made the DC. Who wins the tie? The other option is both parties roll poorly and neither beat the DC. The rogue failed to hide but technically the spotter was also unable to notice. The mechanic fails to resolve the action and so both parties re-roll. Theoretically you could alternate between states for infinity.

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.

They actually had something like this in the version of the playtest that was released prior to the public playtest. Spellcasters rolled for their DC. They removed it because it was slow and doubled the number of rolls. And it meant that the wizard might sometimes drop a big spell and roll terribly on the DC. This is a simple house rule. Remove the 10+bonus for saves and replace it with a d20+bonus and see how it handles at you table. Try once for the DC and then once per opponent and see which plays better. Give each a couple full sessions.

 

[Jester David]

Okay, something I have hated throughout the playtests.
Both have to do with races, because the developers pretty much called races after the second package and have barely touched them, becoming distracted by classes. And they haven't even kept races in the surveys, so new playtesters cannot even comment on the races.

Racial Weapons
I hate how proficiency means you're better with certain weapons. This means some classes will not benefit from a key racial ability because they lack proficiency. This is the exact same problem we had in 3e, when elves gained proficiency in some weapons, which was a bonus for wizards but conferred no bonus for fighters and rangers. Only it's flipped: now it's better for fighters and rangers but does not benefit wizards.

They need to combine the bonuses of the two editions. So elves gain proficiency with longswords, longbows, and the like if they don't already have it. And if they already have proficiency then the damage die increases by 1.


Halflings
Lightfoot halflings are the kender. They have wanderlust and explore the world. Stout halflings are hobbits. They prefer to stay within their communities and live simple lives. And yet, lightfoot halflings (kender) are good at sneaking and stout halflings (hobbits) are fearless.
Ummm... no, the kender should be fearless and the burglar hobbits should be stealthy. This comes from associating kender with being rogues and trying to best fit hobbits into the role of fighters (despite getting a Cha bonus).
Halflings need a little reworking in this respect. All halflings should be stealthy, lightfoots should be fearless, and stouts should get some other bonus.

 

[Sadrik]

This seems terribly unintuitive compared to rolling twice and seeing who is higher. While opposed rolls do not reflect the environment, it's not hard to impose a penalty to one roll (a distracted sentry or a well-lit room) or even advantage/disadvantage.

Adding DCs to the mix just complicates things. It adds a second variable, a second row of outcomes.
With straight opposed rolls there are two outcomes: one roll is higher or the other roll is higher.
With DCs there are four outcomes: one roll is higher than the DC, the other is higher than the DC, both rolls are higher than the DC, neither roll is higher than the DC. In half the case, the outcome is clear (one person rolled high beat the DC while the other did not). In the other two cases things are fuzzy. If both parties rolled high, then nothing is really resolved. The rogue is hidden but the spotter also made the DC. Who wins the tie? The other option is both parties roll poorly and neither beat the DC. The rogue failed to hide but technically the spotter was also unable to notice. The mechanic fails to resolve the action and so both parties re-roll. Theoretically you could alternate between states for infinity.

How do you do rolls in your game to determine how someone sees someone and surprise? Which group sees which group first? That system easily incorporates itself into this too.

I personally think this is very intuitive. binary sneaker is sneaking if they make their sneak roll. They fail by 5 they do an oops and expose themselves. This is similar to the 3e concept not sure if the fail by 5 is in or should be in 5e.

The spotter then rolls what amounts to a perception check to determine if they are surprised. DC is based on a number of factors just like a surprise check would be, distance, is the party/character hidden/invisible, is it rough terrain clear terrain, brightly lit dimly lit or dark. As you can see lots of factors go into a surprise check. I think that all those factors could be honed down to a table with 3 or 4 options and perhaps a couple of modifiers. This would be the surprise system too. So its really not like you would be forging any new terrain with this type of roll.

They actually had something like this in the version of the playtest that was released prior to the public playtest. Spellcasters rolled for their DC. They removed it because it was slow and doubled the number of rolls. And it meant that the wizard might sometimes drop a big spell and roll terribly on the DC. This is a simple house rule. Remove the 10+bonus for saves and replace it with a d20+bonus and see how it handles at you table. Try once for the DC and then once per opponent and see which plays better. Give each a couple full sessions.

I agree you could make an optional rule to bring back opposed rolls for things like AC and spell DCs very easily. However it has to be optional, the play experience becomes too random and swingy.

 

[Sadrik]

Indeed. Long swords should be finesse weapons for elves.

Long swords should be finesse anyway, either STR or DEX. It literally should be one of the most versatile weapons. Hence why it comes up in so many campaigns. If not, it is looking like the scimitar would fill that role.

 

[Jester David]

How do you do rolls in your game to determine how someone sees someone and surprise? Which group sees which group first? That system easily incorporates itself into this too.

Straight Perception checks on both sides if no one is hiding, success based solely on the DC. Or Stealth versus Perception if one side is trying to hide.

I personally think this is very intuitive. binary sneaker is sneaking if they make their sneak roll. They fail by 5 they do an oops and expose themselves. This is similar to the 3e concept not sure if the fail by 5 is in or should be in 5e.

The spotter then rolls what amounts to a perception check to determine if they are surprised. DC is based on a number of factors just like a surprise check would be, distance, is the party/character hidden/invisible, is it rough terrain clear terrain, brightly lit dimly lit or dark. As you can see lots of factors go into a surprise check. I think that all those factors could be honed down to a table with 3 or 4 options and perhaps a couple of modifiers. This would be the surprise system too. So its really not like you would be forging any new terrain with this type of roll.

Write up full rules and try it in your next adventure. Test it. Let us know how it goes.

 

[kerleth]

If I undrstand your suggestion, Sardrik, a spotter rolls against a dc and the skill of the opponent would have little effect. I want my character to have a much harder time noticing Grisendorf the master assassin sent to eliminate my troublesome character, than Blarb, the orc with the peg leg that I pissed off at the bar. It doesn't really make sense that it would be equally difficult to spot both of them. The "trained sneaker" is going to know how to mitigate hindrances and make the most of opportunities and should "realistically' be harder to see. As far as +40 outliers, I think it would be simpler to just keep a tight reign on the math.