D&D 5E Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

[Shiroiken]

Totally disagree on this one. Yes level loss is bad - and that's the whole point! Lose a level or two or three and you either have to do a lot of adventuring to catch up or find a very high level Cleric and pay through the nose for a (Greater) Restoration. In broader terms, given as how death has been made relatively trivial to overcome there need to be other things in the game that can really seriously knock a PC backward long-term. Level loss is one such.

And yes, 3e and 4e didn't handle varying in-party levels very well, but all the other editions do.

The problem being is that unlike in AD&D, where level differed by class, you cannot EVER really catch back up. While 5E can accept a 1 level differential fairly well, at 2 level differential it becomes a problem, and by 3 levels you're just a sidekick. This doesn't sit well with many player, and depending on the method of new character creation for the game, I've seen players retire characters (in order to catch up with the group) or flat out quit the game. This is part of the reason that a lot of groups like using milestone leveling instead of XP. I'll agree that harsh things should happen to the characters (I've modified death to suck a lot more in my games, for example), but this type of punishment is too harsh IMO.

And does this also mean you'd never want to see random XP gain mechanics e.g. one of those Tomes that bestows a level on whoever reads it?

I think it already exists with the Deck of Many Things, IIRC, but I'm not a huge fan. It causes the same imbalance that losing XP does, just for everyone else. With the right group (non-competitive), it's much better than XP loss, but in the wrong group (competitive) it causes too much player conflict.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The problem being is that unlike in AD&D, where level differed by class, you cannot EVER really catch back up. While 5E can accept a 1 level differential fairly well, at 2 level differential it becomes a problem, and by 3 levels you're just a sidekick. This doesn't sit well with many player, and depending on the method of new character creation for the game, I've seen players retire characters (in order to catch up with the group) or flat out quit the game. This is part of the reason that a lot of groups like using milestone leveling instead of XP. I'll agree that harsh things should happen to the characters (I've modified death to suck a lot more in my games, for example), but this type of punishment is too harsh.

Disagree. Level differences have never been an issue at our tables. One current group has PCs ranging from 10th to 14th level. They all contribute just fine and no one feels like a sidekick. In fact, the hero of two of the last three battles has been the 10th level enchanter with his Bigby’s Hand. Different tables, different expectations, I suppose.

 

[5ekyu]

Disagree. Level differences have never been an issue at our tables. One current group has PCs ranging from 10th to 14th level. They all contribute just fine and no one feels like a sidekick. In fact, the hero of two of the last three battles has been the 10th level enchanter with his Bigby’s Hand. Different tables, different expectations, I suppose.

I think it's not an issue that one example can prove. 10th to 14th is a five level range where you are all into super levels. So to me it's not surprising that it works well enough in some cases. But by even CR 12 you have 9th level spells possible in the adversary and the odds of the 10th level enchanter having 100 hp is a tad slim.

But now let's propagate this back to say 1st-5th level parry. Odds that the "hero" of three battles in a row is the first level wizard (not even enchanter yet) ard pretty slim, right?

Personally, it would seem to me that before 9th level, the impact of a 5 level range of PCs really hits the lower PC hard. Its not insurmountable- the whole party can scale back thrircefforts, buff up the lesser and if the threats cooperate it can manage, but I would not call that being something that the system handles well.

After 9th, it matters much less, everyone is already super. But typically most games run most of their time in that 1-8 range, not 9-16.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A-holes or not, if something in the game - be it another player, an opponent, a random magic effect, or whatever - does something to you that you can't/don't resist (either by failing a save or because there isn't one) then IMO for better or worse you're stuck with it.

In most if not all cases there's spells and effects in the game that can later mitigate or negate these things anyway - revival effects for death, restoration or curatives for a variety of other things, and wish-miracle-alter reality if you really need a bigger hammer - thus making pretty much any effect more or less temporary.

Sports analogy: a hockey player plays because s/he enjoys playing the game and is maybe even halfway good at it, but still has to accept that there'll be times when some seriously un-fun stuff happens such as season-ending injuries.

No.

 

[Lanefan]

There gets to be a breaking point where discussion of "Why is your character even in our party?" comes to the table one time more than it should. When my game gets to that point I tell the player of the character with issues fitting in "Either you figure out a way to make your character fit, or they are going to become an NPC and you are going to have to create a new one."

You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

If my character doesn't fit in with the party it's up to the party - in character! - to deal with, either by accommodating him or throwing her out or leaving him behind or killing her outright. Or just making things such that my character's best option is to leave.

Regardless, it's still my character and does NOT become an NPC; and I can still play it in the background even if it does leave the party (e.g. secretly follows the party anyway).

As has been said...the social contract of sitting at my game says that you will find a way for your character to fit in with the rest of the party. For some reason this is harder for some players than others, but there is an unspoken line that is tread even when playing the "tortured loner with a horrible past and all kinds of secret deals the party doesn't know about".

The social contract covers, and ends at, how I fit in with the other players at the table. The characters in the game, however, aren't beholden to any such meta-contract.

In my last campaign this shady rogue got to stick around because the Paladin found him politically useful when aggressive diplomacy at smitepoint wasn't going to get the job done. Even though some of the other party members had reservations, just having that tie to the paladin explained why he was always invited back on the next quest.

Because the shady character was getting money and power on the side letting the BBEG know everything the party was doing it made the road the characters traveled harder than it needed to be.

This is way cool! That said, did the party never think to do some divination on the Rogue to see if it was on the up-and-up? If not, theyère in part the authors of their own demise.....

 

[Lanefan]

• Critical hit and critical fumble tables that include permanent maiming.
• XP or level drain.
• Rust monsters, disenchanters, weapon sundering, etc. except in very, very rare circumstances where the DM has erred.
• Save or die, though I think "save every round to recover and end the effect" is possibly too much in the other direction. Hold person's power level between 1e/2e and 5e is shockingly large.

This series of never-want-to-sees tells me you're one who doesn't like significantly bad things happening to characters.

So I have to ask, are you equally as opposed to significantly good things happening to characters e.g.

• Critical hits that can one-shot major foes
• Major unexpected XP or level gain e.g. from reading a Manual of Puissant Skill at Arms
• Things that randomly bestow magic items or enchantments on PCs e.g. divine gifts or DoMT
• Save or die when it's levied against the party's opponents

If yes, all's good (if a little dull). If no, we have a problem...

 

[Immoralkickass]

So if another player uses a Wish to turn your character into half your height or twice your height, or to drastically alter your alignment or make you donate all your gold or soemthing, what would you do?

Those are perfectly valid uses of a wish mechanically. You should get a saving throw, but let's say you failed it. Then what?

If a party member cast Wish on me with that usage, I dont see how it is different from PVP. Weapon attacks are valid mechanics too, but doesn't mean its right to use it on other players. Same goes for Suggestion, Command etc. The moment you use it on me and argue "Why can't I use it? Its within the rules".
"Because I'm sitting right next to you, naughty word."

 

[Lanefan]

They are worried about being lied to by monsters and every NPC; if they have to worry about other members of their party, it’s too much. Sort of like a sports team. If you can’t trust your teammate, then there are issues.

Not all teammates are good teammates, however; and many a so-called talented team has riun aground on just this issue.

The recently-finished World Series is a fine example: the Astros went for the best players they could get, looking only at numbers rather than character; while the Nationals intentionally brought in players who, while perhaps individually not quite as good as those on the Astros, were good teammates and capable of making the whole better than the sum of its parts. And the Nationals won.

But yes, rule one is never trust anyone until they've earned it, and even then only trust them as far as you have to.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem being is that unlike in AD&D, where level differed by class, you cannot EVER really catch back up. While 5E can accept a 1 level differential fairly well, at 2 level differential it becomes a problem, and by 3 levels you're just a sidekick.

This goes against everything else I've seen-heard-read about 5e; the impression I'd got was that it could quite easily handle a variance of about 2 from the party average (e.g. if the average is 8th it could handle a 6-10 range).

Also, 5e still has a somewhat-logarithmic xp scale, doesn't it, where by a lower level character will catch up just because the lower levels need fewer xp to get through.

This doesn't sit well with many player, and depending on the method of new character creation for the game, I've seen players retire characters (in order to catch up with the group) or flat out quit the game.

If someone quits the game over losing a level that's a player you didn't want in the first place.

Also, in 1e Restoration could fix level loss, at least to a point; no reason it couldn't in 5e (or any other e, for that matter).

Re sudden xp gain:

I think it already exists with the Deck of Many Things, IIRC, but I'm not a huge fan. It causes the same imbalance that losing XP does, just for everyone else. With the right group (non-competitive), it's much better than XP loss, but in the wrong group (competitive) it causes too much player conflict.

The only time I've ever seen any resentment over someone else's PC unexpectedly gaining a boatload of xp is when the PC otherwise hadn't contributed much over a fairly long career.

And Decks play well here, at least if the cries of glee when one is found are anything to go by.

 

[Lanefan]

If a party member cast Wish on me with that usage, I dont see how it is different from PVP. Weapon attacks are valid mechanics too, but doesn't mean its right to use it on other players. Same goes for Suggestion, Command etc. The moment you use it on me and argue "Why can't I use it? Its within the rules".
"Because I'm sitting right next to you, naughty word."

And right there you've taken in-character actions to an out-of-character argument, which wrecks the whole thing.

Deal with it in character, and laugh about it at the table.