• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Critiquing the System


log in or register to remove this ad


ChaosOS

Legend
couple notes

1. For attacks and defenses, even though 4e had a variety of ways to boost them, the expectation was you got an average of +1 per level. Half of this was from just passive leveling bonuses, the other half are from ASIs (+4 modifier over 30 levels) Enhancement bonus (+6 over 30 levels) Expertise (+3 over 30 levels), so only "falling behind" by 2. Point is, there's a lot of number inflation in - if you assume you don't bother with monsters that have more than 70% or less than 30% to hit, that makes the "lifespan" of a monster 8 levels at best. Realistically, due to the nature of linear scaling and the fact that people played mostly in heroic tier, it's much less than that (even in 4e 1st level characters are extra sensitive to higher level threats compared to later levels)
2. I generally like the use of dice as bonuses instead of flat modifiers. There's something about them that's just easier to remember, and I think the variance makes "optimizing" rolls more fun. Would it be better design to unify them under a general d6 bonus/penalty pool? Eh, I think you lose tuning and balance power relative to how much you're really gaining in ease of use. There's not that many of those kinds of abilities.
 

Ah, your saying that since the other game uses extra dice for a skill/circumstance system that 5e could dump all of the above by just allowing stacking ad/dis similar to the other game. That moves into a dice pool game that D&D is not, so it may be a bridge too far.
No. I don’t think they should stack.

I’m simply saying what I explicitly said. In praising a sub-system for it’s simplicity one should consider the opportunity cost of what is lost from not using a slightly more complex system that could further reduce complexity elsewhere.

Although now that I think about it there’s also this curious thing where all the martial stuff interacts with advantage/disadvantage but hardly any spells do.
 

- if you assume you don't bother with monsters that have more than 70% or less than 30% to hit, that makes the "lifespan" of a monster 8 levels at best.
Coming from AD&D, that's an incredibly bizarre assumption to make. In my experience, if everything was going as planned, you wouldn't want to attack anything that had a significant chance of hitting you. Combat was only preferable while you were at a significant advantage.

Then again, 4E significantly shifted the healing paradigm, around the assumption of constant free healing. It really makes it very difficult to compare the math from that edition to anything that came before.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
No. I don’t think they should stack.

I’m simply saying what I explicitly said. In praising a sub-system for it’s simplicity one should consider the opportunity cost of what is lost from not using a slightly more complex system that could further reduce complexity elsewhere.
That's having cake and eating it, too. Advantage replaced a large number of small bonuses with a simpler system. That you can imagine a different system that, to you, reduces complexity doesn't mean advantage therefore increases complexity. Pedigree matters.
Although now that I think about it there’s also this curious thing where all the martial stuff interacts with advantage/disadvantage but hardly any spells do.
Really? Happens all the time in my games -- advantage on saves isn't uncommon at all. Nor on spell attacks.
 


The point was a more complicated sub-system intitally could lead to a simpler game overall once the whole ecology of the game is considered.

Therefore it may follow that, (all things being equal*), it may be better design to actually begin from a more complex base, if that leads to a simper game.

If there's a corollary to that, it is I would suggest, that we should be wary of praising subsystems in isolation because they appear simple or elegant, in isolation from the whole ecology they interact with.

* All things may not be equal - sometimes you may want complexity for it's own sake in order to make things feel distinctive - but that's a different issue.
 
Last edited:

Well duh!
You have successfully refuted your own determined misreading.

If multiple people repeatedly misread your posts, then it's because your posts are not clear. You'll get a lot further rephrasing your arguments when people don't understand them than you will demanding they reread.
 

Heres the 5E text for Bardic Inspiration.
Bardic Inspiration
You can inspire others through stirring words or music. To do so, you use a Bonus Action on Your Turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creature gains one Bardic Inspiration die, a d6.

Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, Attack roll, or saving throw it makes. The creature can wait until after it rolls The D20 before deciding to use the Bardic Inspiration die, but must decide before the DM says whether the roll succeeds or fails. Once the Bardic Inspiration die is rolled, it is lost. A creature can have only one Bardic Inspiration die at a time.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (a minimum of once). You regain any expended uses when you finish a Long Rest.

Your Bardic Inspiration die changes when you reach certain levels in this class. The die becomes a d8 at 5th Level, a d10 at 10th level, and a d12 at 15th level.

Here's the nearest equivalent in Shadow of a Demon Lord - in this case a priest ability.
Prayer When a creature within short range of you makes an attack roll or challenge roll, you can use a triggered action to grant 1 boon on the triggering roll.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top