D&D 5E How it plays vs How it feels and looks

[Minigiant]

I know a friend in conflict.

He dislikes D&D having big numbers, large gaps between character modifiers, and tons of modifiers.

"While can't modifiers shrink? Like to half? 18 Str is just +2."
"Then the game would getting swingy if you don't raise another modifier like skill bonus or proficiency. the d20 is too big."
"Nah. No. Everything has to go down."
"Then the d20 rules. Your character's modifiers won't matter under the weight of a high roll or low roll. Unless you use auto success or exception rules."
"Nah. No. No auto anything."
"You have to give up on something, man!"

He is in a fight between what he wants to see and think when he play versus how the game would play and what it would encourage.

And many fans are having this internal conflict. For modifiers, to racial accuracy, to class features. They have things that like but hate the consequences of inclusion.

So let's discuss our inner conflicts.

Here's one I have: Weapon properties.
I would love weapons both different for each other but simple.

But there is only so much with just proficiency, handedness, range, and damage in core.

I so want attack bonuses but I don't want some of the effects or giving some weapons a +1.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think they should differentiate weapon types by giving each a little special associated with it. Swords are for parrying, axes are for heavy damage, hammers are for dazing opponents. These things could activate on a critical hit, or be intrinsic abilities.

My clash is in the skills system. I dislike Skill Mastery for Rogues because it makes them a bit boring, and yet I'd like to see a skill advancement system built around 'this is your minimum skill check' to represent training.

 

[slobo777]

I want a game that is complex enough to resist over-simplified analyses for optimisation (such as DPR ratings), yet can still be played as a roll game, and is inherently balanced when played as such.

But how will we know if its balanced if it resists analysis?

 

[Minigiant]

My clash is in the skills system. I dislike Skill Mastery for Rogues because it makes them a bit boring, and yet I'd like to see a skill advancement system built around 'this is your minimum skill check' to represent training.

Experts should be reliable but there is no suspense or thrill in reliable.

I want a game that is complex enough to resist over-simplified analyses for optimisation (such as DPR ratings), yet can still be played as a roll game, and is inherently balanced when played as such.

But how will we know if its balanced if it resists analysis?

Or we can go simpler.
How can we know if damage is balanced if we design the game to be about more than damage?
Or worse?
How do we make the game less about damage without making damage dealing insignificant in priority?

 

[howandwhy99]

I know a friend in conflict.

He dislikes D&D having big numbers, large gaps between character modifiers, and tons of modifiers.

Your friend has an interesting opinion. I too would like the numbers to be lower. But how do we do this then on a d20 without gaps in the progression of modifiers across levels? Level 10 becomes +9 sure, but what about those who aren't as proficient? Can this miss levels? And modifiers can be tedious, but they also are what make the details matter when you're making up your mind. It's a tough balancing act. I don't see him getting anything he wants from any game.

Here's one I have: Weapon properties.
I would love weapons both different for each other but simple.

Every weapon can have special properties, just like magic items. It's built in the table with items like lance. Exception-based design has been Wizard's bread & butter for almost a couple of decades now. I think they could customize mundane weapons for you in a module. Or just think like that for yourself and house rule them.

 

[Raith5]

My awkward inner conflict is that my brain tells me to like bounded accuracy and magic items that top out at +3. But after seeing +6 swords and wands in 4th ed, I am finding hard to accept the deflation. It is like in spinal tap, "but it goes up to 11".

 

[n00bdragon]

The size of the numbers doesn't matter. It's the effect buttons you're allowed to push and say "This happens".

 

[cmbarona]

Non-magical Encounter and Daily resources are a big one for me. Heck, even a lot of the magical ones. They just don't make sense in my head. I know how to do X, why can't I do X again until after a short/long rest? It works in practice, though, and it let my 4e Warlord have those awesome nova/burst rounds, but it still grates on my suspension of disbelief.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I don't want characters defined by their magic items. Yet I want magic items to be powerful relative to character abilities.

 

[howandwhy99]

The biggest thing about magic items that isn't listed (so much) is taking them away. The whole argument about a Wizard with Str 25 vs. a Fighter with Str 25 is the Fighter lost their point buy because they dumped more into Strength to begin with. The thing is, that doesn't go away. Magic items do. Frequently.

I think this is like facing monsters who the party aren't going to beat or taking prisoners rather than killing them all. Treasure is sometimes looted by the party, but sometimes the party gets looted and they don't get their stuff back. Sometimes they are prisoners and their equipment is simply lost even though they escape.