D&D 5E What would you like to see in a "revised edition" of 5E?

Imaro · Dec 18, 2014

DaveDash said:
Or, as another example, picture this scenario. You're Bob the melee fighter and you've put hundreds if not thousands of hours into your character. You are finally reaching the higher levels. Jim the archer however in your group has decided to pick up Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. As you start leveling up, you start to note a lot of encounters you're pretty ineffective compared to Jim. Jim can basically do everything you can do up close and personal in combat, but he can also do the same things at range, and unfortunately for you, most of the higher level encounters you're facing happen to use a lot of highly mobile flying, or legendary moving creatures.
Poor old you is huffing and puffing back and forth, throwing a Javelin here or a hand axe there, trying to keep up. Meanwhile Jim is shooting crossbow bolts like lazers, completely ignoring cover, and doing a ridiculous amount of damage from hundreds of feet away. Soon the party basically stops buffing you completely, and they start saving their buffs for Jim, realising how much more effective he is over you.
Unless the DM start banning feats and housing ruling things, which is probably going to be very annoying for Jim, OR engineer encounters to give Bob something to do (and subsequently nerf Jim, also pretty annoying for him), you're going to end up with a serious imbalance at your table.

I'm confused by a few points in this example... maybe you could clear them up for me...

1. What exactly did Bob the melee character take when Jim took Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?

2. Why is the DM using a majority of flying creatures (without having told the PC's this beforehand so they could build appropriate characters) as opposed to a mix of encounter types that allow everyone to shine and have fun... I mean this has been a "problem" in every edition of D&D... certain monsters cater to certain character types more than others... (as an example undead monsters favor paladins and clerics doing more damage)? These monsters are there to let different character types shine and to make the game slightly more difficult for other types but using one type of monster exclusively is not an imbalance in the game, it's an imbalance in the DM's created threats/challenges.

Mistwell · Dec 18, 2014

Nawara said:
I'd just like to point out that the 3e version of this thread would have involved a lot of complaining about how broken the Monk class was.

Exactly. It's a good example of why theorycrafting for D&D is not necessarily accurate, and people should have figured out by now that you don't look to change a game's rules based on purely theorycrafting but only after it turns out to be an issue in actual game play.

DEFCON 1 · Dec 18, 2014

airwalkrr said:
I can't believe the final of the three core rulebooks literally came out this month and this thread is already here.

Oh, what am I talking about? It's the internet. I'm surprised this thread wasn't here 5 months ago.

Hell... there were threads a year ago of people revising rules from the playtest for their own future games under the assumption those rules were going to make it all the way through to the finished product.

wedgeski · Dec 18, 2014

Mistwell said:
Exactly. It's a good example of why theorycrafting for D&D is not necessarily accurate, and people should have figured out by now that you don't look to change a game's rules based on purely theorycrafting but only after it turns out to be an issue in actual game play.

This has become a huge problem across the whole spectrum of gaming. "I'm disappointed". "I'm not enjoying this". "This isn't fun for me". To me those are perfectly acceptable responses to a game, but for many, no comment is worth making if it doesn't include the words "unbalanced" or "a joke".

Dausuul · Dec 18, 2014

I agree it's way early to be complaining about balance, but there are other things that could clearly use fixing, mostly relating to presentation and missing elements. Here's my list:

Stealth rules that are clearer and easier to understand. (I'm fine with Stealth requiring liberal amounts of DM adjudication, but the parts requiring DM adjudication should spell that out--"The DM decides X, Y, and Z"--and the parts not requiring adjudication should be clear and definitive.)
More useful reference tables for spells (at minimum, list the school for each) and monsters.
More elemental spells for sorcerers. Right now, if you play a draconic sorcerer and pick any element other than fire, your selection of in-element damage spells is so thin it's almost nonexistent.
A lot of general clarification, cleanup, and errata.
A couple more cleric domains; if nothing else, Love needs to be on the list. Just about every pantheon ever has at least one god or goddess of love.

Joe Liker · Dec 18, 2014

Anyone who thinks 5e needs a Revised Edition is someone who will never be happy with any gaming product, ever. There is no point in trying to appease such people.

Flexor the Mighty! · Dec 18, 2014

The only change is more suggestions for optional rules in the DMG.

DaveDash · Dec 18, 2014

Imaro said:
I'm confused by a few points in this example... maybe you could clear them up for me...

1. What exactly did Bob the melee character take when Jim took Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?

2. Why is the DM using a majority of flying creatures (without having told the PC's this beforehand so they could build appropriate characters) as opposed to a mix of encounter types that allow everyone to shine and have fun... I mean this has been a "problem" in every edition of D&D... certain monsters cater to certain character types more than others... (as an example undead monsters favor paladins and clerics doing more damage)? These monsters are there to let different character types shine and to make the game slightly more difficult for other types but using one type of monster exclusively is not an imbalance in the game, it's an imbalance in the DM's created threats/challenges.

Please go read those damage charts I posted. They're from a real game. You then tell me that the -5/+10 feats are working as intended.

If you're like Mistywell and want to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything in the game is fine, I'll post a lot more real game data that all looks the same, backed up with roll20 screenshots if required.

Again, I'm not getting into specifics. I used to post combat logs online and it got nasty when people didn't see what they wanted to see.

Dausuul · Dec 18, 2014

DaveDash said:
Please go read those damage charts I posted. They're from a real game. You then tell me that the -5/+10 feats are working as intended.

If you're like Mistywell and want to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything in the game is fine, I'll post a lot more real game data that all looks the same, backed up with roll20 screenshots if required.

Again, I'm not getting into specifics. I used to post combat logs online and it got nasty when people didn't see what they wanted to see.

What I'm getting from this debate so far is that dodging is way overpowered in 5E. I don't think a single question aimed at you has connected yet.

Imaro didn't ask for combat logs or damage charts. He asked what exactly Bob the melee character took when Jim took Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, and why the DM was using a majority of flying creatures.

Maybe you're right and those feats are overpowered, but you're not going to convince anyone of that by refusing to answer questions and saying anyone who wants to debate the point is "burying his/her head in the sand." If you don't want a debate, I don't know why you continue to respond to posts. What are you hoping to achieve? If you want everyone to admit you're right, you're sure going the wrong way about it.

Imaro · Dec 18, 2014

DaveDash said:
Please go read those damage charts I posted. They're from a real game. You then tell me that the -5/+10 feats are working as intended.

I didn't ask if they are from a real game, I'm asking what feats did the players you're comparing take? I mean you gave us the feats of one character but don't list those of the other... why? that's pretty pertinent information if doing a comparison...

DaveDash said:
If you're like Mistywell and want to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything in the game is fine, I'll post a lot more real game data that all looks the same, backed up with roll20 screenshots if required.

Will the data be complete this time? because if not I'll ask the same questions... what did the melee fighter spend his two feat slots on that isn't making him better at melee than the ranged fighter or comparable in ranged combat??

DaveDash said:
Again, I'm not getting into specifics. I used to post combat logs online and it got nasty when people didn't see what they wanted to see.

The issue is you are getting specific... claiming two specific feats on a particular character unbalanced the game but then don't provide the same level of specificity for the character you compare him too... Also I hate to break it to you but your claim is all about specifics.

D&D 5E What would you like to see in a "revised edition" of 5E?

Imaro

Legend

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

DEFCON 1

Legend

wedgeski

Adventurer

Dausuul

Legend

Joe Liker

First Post

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

DaveDash

Explorer

Dausuul

Legend

Imaro

Legend

Similar Threads