D&D 5E CHALLENGE: Change one thing about 5e

[77IM]

Problem: Perception is a must-have skill.

I mean, you don't have to have it... but most PCs I see have Perception, and it is by far the single most requested skill checks by the DM, at any table I've played at.

Solution: Initiative isn't a skill. Perception shouldn't be a skill, either. Make it "just a thing," like Initiative.

Initiative = Dex mod, plus bonuses from feats and class features and such.
Perception = Wis mod, plus bonuses from feats and class features and such.

While I'm at it, I would give more classes bonuses to these quantities. Otherwise there's not much point in listing them separately. Here's how I'd apportion them:

Initiative: Fighters and rangers add their proficiency bonus; bards and rogues add half their proficiency bonus.
Perception: Rangers and rogues add their proficiency bonus; bards, fighters, and elves add half their proficiency bonus.

Plus, there'd be a feat or two that adds to Perception, maybe some of the barbarian totems could do it, etc.

In monster stat blocks, it would be listed with the senses:
Senses darkvision 120 ft., Perception +9 (passive 19)

Why it Works: Perception is just too good a skill -- it's so much more valuable than other skills, so it should cost more. My solution removes the need to invest in Perception as a skill pick. But, characters may still vary in in their Perception based on class and race, reinforcing certain character archetypes as more or less perceptive. Finally, if you are using the optional feat system, characters can still invest in Perception; it would just be much more expensive than a skill pick.

 

[77IM]

Problem: Expertise breaks bounded accuracy. A lot. Like a whole lot. For example, it's easy to build a rogue with a Stealth modifier higher than most enemies' passive Perceptions.

When there are challenges that some party members can't succeed at and others can't fail at, this makes it hard for the DM to build appropriate challenges for the whole party, and also can discourage players from participating. This is why I like bounded accuracy so much. (I know there are some people who feel otherwise, but screw 'em, this thread is about what I would fix about 5E.)

Solution: Bounded accuracy works well in combat because, even though everybody's attack bonus is about the same, the consequences of their attacks differ: different damage, range, damage types, special conditions, etc. But the outcome of skill checks is ill-defined; all we have is the modifier, so for a character to be better, they must have a higher modifier. Thus our solution must be to somehow introduce qualitative changes to skill checks.

Ability Check Criticals. When you roll an ability check, if the check succeeds, and you roll a natural 20, you get a critical result. If you are adding your proficiency to the check, and the check succeeds, then you get a critical result on a roll of 19-20.

A critical result gets the character the best possible outcome. It may grant bonuses above and beyond what the character was seeking. As a guideline, here are some things appropriate to a critical result.

• The check takes less than the normal time. For example, a lock that might take several rounds to pick only takes 1 round.
• The check affects more targets than expected. For example, intimidation aimed at only a single character winds up intimidating many.
• The check produces more materials than necessary. For example, instead of finding food for 5 people, the character finds food for 10 people.
• The character overcomes restrictions connected to the check. For example, if a check allows climbing at half speed, the character instead climbs at full speed.
• The character, or an ally, automatically succeeds at some future check. For example, if three successes are needed to research the location of a lost treasure, the skill check result counts as two of them.
• The character, or an ally, gains advantage on one or more future checks. For example, an attempt at deception is so successful that future attempts to sway those targets are at advantage.

Expertise. When you have Expertise in a skill (or tool), any success on a skill check is a critical result.

Why it Works: Skill and ability checks are open-ended, and defining them in clear terms like combat checks would require a LOT of text. Critical results are an equally open-ended alternative. Plus, D&D has needed degrees-of-success for a long time.

Allowing Expertise to grant critical results on any success seems powerful. BUT: It doesn't increase your likelyhood of success at all. The rogue with Stealth Expertise is just as likely to succeed as the ranger with Stealth proficiency. Their failure is equally bad: they get spotted. But when the ranger succeeds, he's just hidden. When the rogue succeeds, maybe he hides as a free action; or maybe he can hide despite inadequate cover; or maybe he figures out a good hiding place, granting the rest of the party advantage on their hide attempts.

 

[MiraMels]

Change one thing?

Make the "using skills with alternate abilities" variant rule a core part of the system. Fully decouple the skills from the abilities modifiers.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Now, when I was growing up, my mom always told me, "Lowkey13, if you can't be a part of the solution, become a part of the problem." This was sage advice, and I have followed it well. But today, I was thinking to myself, "Self, what if you could actually be a part of the solution?"

As such, I am creating a challenge thread. I have read (and occasionally participated) in numerous, well-intentioned threads about various problems that people see in 5e. So now I am asking- what is the solution.

{insert montage scene}

You have just been invited to WoTC's World Headquarters, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., to discuss 5e with the D&D braintrust. After walking down miles of corridors for their other products (no, even more miles), filled with palatial desks, executives burning $100 bills, and Brian Goldner running around screaming and re-creating his favorite scenes from Scarface, you are led to a small janitor's closet in the basement.

There, huddled for warmth around a small fire burning in an oil drum, are Mike Mearls and a team of underfed kobolds. Mike looks up at you and says, "Hey, loved your ideas you posted. So ... here's your chance. We're doing a major revision of the rules to clarify, expand, and make everything that much more awesome. Pitch me on one thing we need to change in 5e."

{insert montage scene of kobolds attacking you}

So that's it! Now, for purposes of this post, you aren't allowed to just complain that something is done wrong. You can't complain about more than one thing. That's the challenge! So, here's what I'd like to see-

1. Identify one (1) thing you think 5e has done incorrectly, improperly, or not as well as you think it should have. Why one? Because choice tends to focus the mind.*

2. You can make the issue as small (Paladins have never been good, Paladins need to be removed as a class**) or as large (CR is broken) as you want; just remember, the bigger the issue, the harder step 3 will be.'

3. Propose your solution. You don't have to into detailed rules with art, suitable for the DM's Guild.*** But you have to give an actual solution to the single most pressing problem that you would fix.

So? What will it be? What is the one issue that you think most needs to be fixed, changed, or altered in 5e, and how would you fix it?





*Look. If you had one shot, or one opportunity to seize everything you ever wanted in one moment; would you capture it? Or just let it slip?You better lose yourself in the Mearls, the moment. You own it, you better never let it go. You only get one shot- do not miss your chance to blow.
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime you better ...

**Arguably, that's an unfair example because everyone knows Paladins are terrible.

***But if you do, I both won't stop you, and may use your post in my home game.

1) They didn't leverage the Exhaustion Track enough.
2) They didn't leverage the Death Saves enough.

The exhaustion track is a great incremental list of bad stuff that lives outside of the hit point structure and can provide long-term consequences. I renamed it the Condition Track.

The Death Saves mechanic puts a variable amount of time with a chance of success or failure as a gate to very bad stuff. I renamed it Deadly Condition saving throw.

Some examples:
Fatigue (uses Condition Track, can recover one level after a short rest)
Exhaustion (uses Condition Track, recover as written)
Injuries (uses Condition Track, recover using Deadly Condition saves, one try per day)
Falling Damage (uses Condition Track, can cause injuries)
Ability Damage (uses Deadly Condition saves, one try per day, 3 failures is permanent loss of that point of ability damage).
Disease (uses Condition Track, daily Deadly Condition saves).

I've also modified healing magic to make them more deadly.
Lesser restoration must be cast before the Deadly Condition saving throw. If that save is a failure, then it is negated. It's not counted as a success or failure. This has the effect of extending the deadly condition, but doesn't worsen it nor make it better.

Greater restoration grants advantage on the Deadly Condition save.

Healing Feat or using a healing kit without the feat allows the creature to add Constitution bonus to their Deadly Condition saves. Healing feat with a healing kit acts like lesser restoration.

This all serves to make the game grittier, allow bad things from critical hits, etc., but without being an outright save or die, all while using existing 5e mechanics.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

There's not enough rock and pop in this setting.

Yes, just imagine it. Dwarven glam rockers, elven punk rockers, drow pop stars, orc rappers... There's no end to the amount of music we could add! And the art... The art alone would draw people to look at the books!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Most players, I think, certainly since 2000 and the advent of d20, would say the primary rule is for the game to be fun, and long periods of downtime isn't that. In short: nobody wants to keep going when a) they aren't at full hit points and b) it's so easy to rest

The generous healing rules is simply a reflection on that, that does away with the stoopid CLW wands.

I certainly wouldn't agree "most" players, although you could probably make that argument for those that really enjoy 4e.

But I do agree that you have a point, although I have a bit of a different perspective on it.

Although this probably started in 2.5e (Combat & Tactics), and grew in 3/3.5e, I think 4e really defined the difference between two general (very generalized) groups in D&D.

The first is the group you're referring to, that likes to just "have fun." While not all of this group liked 4e, it catered specifically to them. "Skip the boring stuff, cut to the action." The APs play a lot toward this group as well. The game is focused on gaining levels, special abilities, and they prefer to have full use of their abilities. This is similar to both video games, and also things like MtG where everybody (every card) has special abilities, a unique niche, and plays very well to those who also like the related meta-game of character creation (build), min-maxing, etc. This is quite similar to deck building. The increasing levels and new options and abilities is similar to video games. Then you "beat the game" or complete the AP, and start a new group of characters for a new game (AP).

The second group might be called "old-school" and probably most groups playing OD&D through AD&D fit in this category. For these gamers, it's more about the campaign - the continuing adventures of a character or group of characters, building stories and a world for those stories to live. "Realism" and role-playing are the more important aspects to the game. Gaining new abilities is OK, but not essential. Figuring out how to continue and succeed when not at peak hp, sandbox play to some degree or another, and things like getting supplies, wilderness travel and adventure, resource management, etc. are common.

In my campaign, I've eliminated the short rest/long rest problem with a very simple observation. People are creatures of habit. We get up and like our coffee, or breakfast, or whatever. We like a break from what we're doing every once and a while, lunch, dinner, and stop for the day and get a good sleep. There's some variability, but whether you're at work or on vacation, the general order of the day remains the same.

In the first group, while playing an adventure path, a character might go from 1st to 15th level in a matter of 3 or 4 months of game play. You're expected to level up every two or three sessions.

In the second group, level advancement can be slower, sometimes very slow (like my campaigns). I compare it to a TV series, or superhero series. Superman doesn't keep gaining levels and abilities. He's generally had the same abilities for 60 years of comics, TV series and movies. It's all about the stories, the current challenge, the current villains and their schemes. A character's flaws and the lack of necessary resources are all exciting challenges to be overcome. Clever solutions are often needed because you generally don't have all of the abilities to easily kill every monster.

There are a lot of variations between these, of course. But to state that

In short: nobody wants to keep going when a) they aren't at full hit points and b) it's so easy to rest

is wrong. There's certainly a log of people that like that, but it's far from "nobody." Because for some of us the rules aren't defining the world. Instead, the rules (usually through some tweaking, but sometimes just interpretation) support the world.

I, firmly in the second camp, don't actually have a problem with the fast healing of hp in 5e. I really see the first level of hp as your actually physical health. The rest represent stamina and skill (from training), and a bit of luck. So regaining that after resting makes sense to me, both immediately following a combat, and also a full rest at night. Instead, I have an injury system using the Exhaustion Track that supplements it (which I explained a bit more in this thread). Because I want the rules to support an NPC that is too injured to help the PCs, but can't easily be healed by magic either.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Heh, I know this one isn't going to be popular.

Problem: Too much default lore in the books. The Monster Manual is particularly egregious here. Many monsters have been tied to other monsters for no particular reason and lore can be very specific at times.

Solution: Return to a 2e style. When discussing the monster, talk about its motivations, what it generally does in its day to day life, that sort of thing. Keep it very general and stop trying to thematically tie every single monster with some other monster. And FFS, no more "slave races". Sheesh.

A related problem to this, which started back in 3e was the dumping of everything into the Forgotten Realms. Not everything needs to be (or belongs) in the FR.

4e really went off the deep end on the default lore, and then proceeded to homogenize all of the settings. I understand the concept behind it - what makes a D&D orc a D&D orc? and they built a niche for them.

But a lot of this thinking continues into 5e. It's particularly evident in VGtM which creates a whole bunch of new monsters and lore and ties them together in ways that don't fit with old FR campaigns. I would prefer lore to remain within setting specific books, but for the FR it's a problem since it's now the default campaign, and everything (except CoS so far) becomes FR.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Explicitly state the Hiding rules are written in plain English and the phrase' you cant hide from a creature that can see you' isn't meant to be some kind of parsed gamist nonsense of 'you can take the Hide action once you break LOS' and is just a statement reflecting common bloody sense.
[/INDENT]

You might be referring to me in this one

I parse that one all the time, but from a realistic perspective, not a gamist. Common bloody sense is "You can't be watching everybody all the time, particularly when you're trying to avoid being killed by somebody swinging a sword at your head."

There are a ton of scientific studies and real life examples of how poor a person's real world perception and observation is, particularly when their attention is focused on something. I would guess that in the midst of a sword fight your focus on your direct opponent better be as much as your focus on a smart phone when walking down the street, or you'll lose your head. Yes, you need to have a sense of what's going on around you, but it's really not nearly as good as you think it is.

The trick is figuring out how to make a rule that takes this into account, while avoiding the gamist approach of trying to find loopholes in how things are worded to end up with absurd results. Oh wait, that's impossible. Instead you have to do exactly what 5e does - rely on the DMs judgement, and the tables agreement about what is possible and what's not.

 

[Igwilly]

My problem.*

Too much spellcasting. I think it devalues magic in general.

My solution.

First, I would go back and re-design the classes. I would make the so-called "half-casters" in 5e that are martial (Paladins, Rangers) go to non-casting status, and replace spells with abilities. I would allow the Bard the option of half-caster (college of lore), and weaken half-casting (I would also weaken arcane trickster and EK). In essence, "half-caster" would now be a subclass (College of Lore, AT, EK).

Then I would move Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to a Vancian system- you have to have particular spells memorized, then forgotten. Yeah, I know. I would limit the number of spells known to Wizards from what it is now.

Warlocks and Sorcerers (especially) would retain limited spells, but gain the (slight) advantage of flexibility in their spellcasting. More flexibility from a more limited palette.

Finally, I would greatly reduce the availability and potency of cantrips. I would get rid of attack cantrips completely; this is what weapons are for. However, I would increase the potency of spells; if you are using one of your (level) spells, then you should get more benefit.

Those are my thoughts.

While I understand that these views aren't popular with many people, my personal belief is that magic is more awesome when it is more scarce.



*I understand that this isn't shared by most people.

I hope I’m not late, but I actually agree with you. At least most of it.

Vancian magic is awesome! The only problem was how it scales compared to other classes.
Cantrips also annoy me, at least when every caster gets is. The idea that everyone needs to have free-magic just seems strange. The very concept of “free-magic” needs to be carefully considered.

As a note, this isn’t about wanting low-magic settings. I actually like high-magic settings: it’s a lot easier to design a world full of casters if those casters are limited enough so they don’t break the whole thing.

Just my thoughts.

P.S.: Vancian magic isn’t the only system that’s awesome. Spell points/mana, for example, is also awesome! It just needs to be done right so it doesn’t feel like “free-magic” for everyone.

Thing is, many (if not most) people think the classic Vancian system is a seven-headed demon lord. It isn’t. The main problem is “Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards”. We did make the classic system right: it is possible; you just need to avoid that.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. Identify one (1) thing you think 5e has done incorrectly, improperly, or not as well as you think it should have.

Multiclassing rules, while being the best ever, are incorrectly designed, because of some unneeded extra complications that have no benefit, and instead introduce imbalances between characters with the same combination of classes taken in different orders.

This is a bad thing because it increases complexity for zero benefits. The presumed benefit is to discourage level-dipping, too-good combos (of classes with wide differences), and excessive multiclassing. None of them are actually significantly prevented by the current rules.

Fortunately, the wrong in the multiclassing rules can be narrowed down to two specific areas: prerequisites and proficiencies.

Prerequisites are moot. They are simply so low compared with the typical scores of 5e PCs, that they will practically never prevent a powergamer to multiclass the way they want. If anything, they might stop a casual gamer to create a legitimate character that would never be a problem in the game.

In addition, because of these prerequisites:
- you are allowed to play a single class Wizard with 3 Intelligence
- but you are disallowed to play a multiclass Wizard with 12 Intelligence if you didn't start as a Wizard
- but you are allowed to play a multiclass Wizard with 3 Intelligence if you didn't start as a Wizard
This sort of thing is simply an insult to reason.

Proficiencies restrictions follow ad-hoc rules for each class, which is already clunky and slow, but their main problem is that they are supposed to prevent exploiting some combos (such as a Wizard taking a level of Fighter for the armor proficiencies), but they end up not preventing it at all (just take the Fighter level first). Once again, this is plain dumb design.

3. Propose your solution. You don't have to into detailed rules with art, suitable for the DM's Guild.*** But you have to give an actual solution to the single most pressing problem that you would fix.

The solution is simple:

- Remove multiclassing prerequisites
- Let all equipment (weapons, armors, shields, tools) proficiencies from all classes stack
- Let skill proficiencies from all classes overlap in number

The last one means that a multiclass character will always have as many skill proficiencies as the class of hers which has the most. For example, a multiclass Rogue always has 4 skill proficiencies, a multiclass Bard or Ranger always has 3.

Optionally, you can allow retraining of skills, so that a character can give up a proficiency from her earlier classes in exchange for a proficiency from the new class list (this can help the narrative representation, e.g. a Fighter becoming a Wizard would not increase the number of skills, but could choose to give up Athletics in exchange for Arcana to better represent the character concept).

These rules are simpler, do not prevent legitimate character concepts anymore, and do not create characters of different power depending on the order of the classes.