D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[Fanaelialae]

One possible approach, if you want to maintain a strong role-oriented game, would be to group each class by role and assign them one or more source keywords.

Limit out-of-role choices to some ratio (say 1 non-role power for every 2 role powers you have). Then source keywords act as hard limits (without a multiclass feat a Wizard can't take martial powers).

Take, for example, the aforementioned Wizard (controller role, arcane source) with a Fighter multiclass feat (martial source). Let's say he has 6 powers total. He could select any powers from the arcane controller and martial controller lists. He could alternately select up to 2 non-controller powers from the arcane and martial lists.

It would detach secondary role from class, allowing players to customize their characters while maintaining strong role separation. You could play a Wizard controller who's a secondary striker, leader, or even defender (or some mix thereof). Or even just focus purely on control.

The downside is that the more buckets you allow players to dip in, the more chances they'll discover unintended (broken) synergies. However, I think you have to accept that as a reality with this kind of approach.

 

[KidSnide]

I'm not sure about utility powers, though. Maybe they shouldn't scale and let you accumulate them all the way up to level 30. Perhaps they should primarily be given through your class.

For utility powers, I think there are very good reasons to organize these by power source. Other than a small number of role-specific utilities (mostly marking and healing abilities), I don't see many examples where it would be problematic for all the power source examples to share a single list. I mean, sure the Fighter would be able to take the Rogue's sneaking utility powers, but who cares? I think you put all of that one a shared list and simply limit some utility powers to "class X only" (or "class X and Y only", or "class X and other defenders only").

As to the number of utility powers, I think at least one of the even levels when you get a new utility power, you should get a new class ability instead. One of the concepts behind this design idea is to increase the importance of class abilities, and I've never heard a justification for the vast number of utility powers a character can accumulate other than the desire to have something cool at every level.

Frankly my feeling is that the 4e Paladin should have been STR/CHA based and the cleric should have been CHA/WIS based. STR clerics and CHA paladins always were redundant concept overlap.

I completely agree. I think we got STR/WIS clerics only because traditional D&D involves a cleric wielding a mace. Clerics should have just had a WIS/STR version that included the occational weapon ability and allowed STR to be used as the booster to some powers.

For you guys that prefer to have a few lists by power source instead of a few lists by role, how about flipping the keywords to be for role then?

So you've got Martial, Arcane, Spirit (or Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal). Then every power has one or more keywords of Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller. That allows all the, say, arcane controllers to share some powers without automatically having bards throwing flaming spheres around.

I'm not opposed to adding role keywords, although I think many powers would be role-neutral. So, your Flaming Sphere example could have a "Wizards and Other Controllers Only" limitation, but there's no reason to apply the same limitation to every power.

Oh, and I agree with your idea up-thread that some exceptional classes will have more class-specific powers.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there is another but unstated issue there. Role is a purely meta-game concept. It feels VERY artificial to me to say to a player "Well, no, Herby can't use his sword like that, he's a Defender and he can't take more Striker powers". While a little of that is OK, and you can always patch over it with some feat or other if you're determined to, it is always best to stick with game constructs that are as close to narrative concepts as possible.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I would like to see a "Dodge" mechanic introduced to the game. I think armor should make it harder for you to take damage, not harder to hit. This mechanics would actually make heavy armor more useful. Right now the best thing to do is have a high dex while wearing hide armor.

 

[KidSnide]

I would like to see a "Dodge" mechanic introduced to the game. I think armor should make it harder for you to take damage, not harder to hit. This mechanics would actually make heavy armor more useful. Right now the best thing to do is have a high dex while wearing hide armor.

That's the sort of change that I think takes us further away from "what is D&D." My guess is that WotC wants 5e to feel more like "classic D&D" than 4e. That change seems like it's in the opposite direction.

And -- more importantly -- I'm all for slaughtering sacred cows when they create a better game experience, but I don't see how adding extra steps for Dodge / DR-subtraction to every combat action will make the game better. I've played a bunch of games with Dodge and DR, and I never felt those rules made combat more fun. Maybe more realistic (for at least some values of "realistic"), but it never seemed more fun.

-KS

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think there is another but unstated issue there. Role is a purely meta-game concept. It feels VERY artificial to me to say to a player "Well, no, Herby can't use his sword like that, he's a Defender and he can't take more Striker powers". While a little of that is OK, and you can always patch over it with some feat or other if you're determined to, it is always best to stick with game constructs that are as close to narrative concepts as possible.

I don't think there's anything preventing the current roles from being made into more narrative concepts. For example:

Guardian - Defender
Ravager - Striker
General - Leader
Tactician - Controller

Role is inherently tied to what a class does, and what your class does tends to be tied into your concept (a 4e Rogue who isn't interested in putting the hurt on enemies is a pretty poor Rogue). Hence, you can include a blurb in the role/class descriptions (like the old alignment section) that makes role as natural a part of a character as their class.

Guardians want to protect people.
Ravagers have a talent for killing.
Generals have a strong desire to help their allies.
Tacticians have control issues.

Mind you, aside from perhaps Guardian, I don't think those titles are especially good. Nonetheless, it wouldn't take much to come up with more evocative names for the roles.

I freely admit that roles are artificial constructs, but they don't have to be framed that way. Lots of things in D&D are artificial constructs, such a classes. However, because classes are presented with plenty of flavor text, they don't necessarily come across as artificial. I think roles are worth preserving (because they do well to engender team-oriented play) and I think this would make them feel like a much more natural aspect of the game.

 

[Cross]

To be honest, as I look over the thread, the idea that resonates most with me is the idea of role-specific "mutators" on powers. I love the idea of doing something like:

Holy Smite: Divine Melee Attack 3
2d[W] damage
Leader: Allies adjacent to target gain 5 temporary hit points
Defender: Enemy takes a -4 on attacks against allies, gains a +2 to attacks on you
Striker: Enemy takes ongoing fire damage 5
Controller: Enemy is dazed until end of your next turn

Ideally, then a character would choose a power source and a role as specified, with class effectively being flavor. So the difference between a cleric and a paladin? One's a leader, one's a defender. Both draw from the same power set, but they get different results when they do so.

 

[KidSnide]

To be honest, as I look over the thread, the idea that resonates most with me is the idea of role-specific "mutators" on powers. I love the idea of doing something like:

Holy Smite: Divine Melee Attack 3
2d[W] damage
Leader: Allies adjacent to target gain 5 temporary hit points
Defender: Enemy takes a -4 on attacks against allies, gains a +2 to attacks on you
Striker: Enemy takes ongoing fire damage 5
Controller: Enemy is dazed until end of your next turn

This sort of thing seems fine to me, but I don't really want to make roles more of an in-game concept. I mean -- you could -- it's certainly possible. I just don't see how it improves the narrative fiction of the game. Do sorcerers, thieves and barbarians really think they have something in common? Does a bard and a warlord really think they are somehow two variants of the same idea?

In contrast, the power source does exist in game. Sorcerers, artificers and wizards all agree that they use the same magic in different ways. One of the reasons I think it would be better if they shared many of the same powers is that it makes the rules better reflect the in-game reality. Arcane casters cast the same (or different variants on the same) spells because they are using the same tool, albeit with different techniques.

One of the things I don't like about 4e is that, because each power is unique,
it is too hard for a player to predict how an effect will work mechanically based on its in-game description. Common abilities with a power source can mitigate this. A GM can always pick a whack-a-doodle effect (and that's a good thing), but I really wish there was more of a sense of "oh, that's a Fireball / Word of Chaos / Evard's Hentai Nightmare -- I know how that works."

(Well, maybe not the third example...)

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not opposed to adding role keywords, although I think many powers would be role-neutral. So, your Flaming Sphere example could have a "Wizards and Other Controllers Only" limitation, but there's no reason to apply the same limitation to every power.

Yes. I said 1 to 2 role keywords per power, but it should have been zero to 2.

What I'm really trying to stop here is a goofy structure based on minor issues. So if they decided to have powers by source and powers by class, there is this strong temptation to be strict about it. If it is in the class, only that class gets it. If it is in the source list, anyone of that source can get it. So then they have powers that really only 2 or 3 classes should get. So they move it to the most likely class list, and then make carbon copies of it for the other two classes. And then they introduce a 4th class that fits, and have to do the same. On the flipside, we'll get a few powers kept in the source list for convenience, even though the designer knows full well that a particular class shouldn't get it.

But there is no reason to be strict about that. Conceptually, it is easy to see powers that everyone in the source should have, powers that only a given class should have, and powers that are in the middle. That middle stuff is typically goofed up because someone lets the presentation method dictate content.

Can you tell this irritates me no end?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I want 5e to reverse the trend of hit point inflation.